At what point is a new soul created according to the Catholic Church?

It seems clear that Catholic Church debunked Origen's claim that souls were created and existed before conception and birth.

It is more accurate to say "rejected" than "debunked" but there is substantial theological support to that rejection(cf. below).  Certainly the soul is there before birth according to current teaching of the RCC.   Current teaching has had the benefit of 1500+ years of theological development since Origen fell out of favor, and points to the soul being created "at the time of conception" bearing in mind that the unity of body and soul provides the complementary teaching that at conception (the beginning of the body) one finds the beginning of the soul.

Humans don't create souls, God does.  CCC 366 (below) points to that fusion as  happening immediately and being done by God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Article 2270, in English):

  2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

  Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

The italicized portion comes from Jeremiah 1:5.

The above extract is a subset of a longer discourse beginning in article 2258 about life and not taking innocent life, per the Fifth commandment, which then goes to abortion and euthanasia and suicide and more.  The "before I formed you in the womb" stands out, when combined with earlier articles in the Catechism that presents the soul:

  365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

  366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

From that combination, and Jeremiah, the meaning comes across as either that

the soul was known to God before conception, or
that the soul and physical being/body are joined at the time of conception

Based on the unity of body and soul as a concrete teaching of the church, the latter articles are the more explicit.  The passage in Jeremiah can be understood as "formed in the womb" summarizing the entire process of gestation before birth, which marries up with the latter conclusion just fine.

Final Answer: at time of conception but it takes some putting together of puzzle pieces to get there.

Caveat

At what level of teaching can one place this conclusion, or the elements of official teaching that inform this conclusion?

The CCC notes DS as a source, which refers to Ludwig Ott's seminal
20th century work.  This source was cited in footnote 234 in CCC 366, as was the Council if Vienne of 1312 which addressed a variety of issues.

The relevant pronouncement from the Council of Vienne:

  In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

The English translation of Ott's work was found to be without significant error.  {Nihil Obstat Jeremiah J. O'Sullivan, D.O. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: ~ Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis. 7 October, 1954.}  The level of teaching presented in that tome of Catholic Doctrine was Sententia certa which fits into the teaching heirarchy (from strongest to weakest) as follows ...
Heirarchy of teachings

De fide
Fides ecclesiastica
Sententia fidei proxima
Sententia certa
Sententia communis
Sententia probabilis

You are invited to look up those terms if you want to know their precise meaning.  I did not find a Sententia fidei proxima match with CCC 366 (to answer @Nathaniel's comment).
Humani Generis reconfirms the Council of Vienne

When the Papal Encyclical Humani Generis (article 36) declares that the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God it reasserts a centuries old teaching.  I am wary of taking that statement out of context and asserting that this statement moves the teaching higher up the ladder (presented above) so I make no such assertion (given that I have already been falsely accused by one user here of declaring a dogma).  The CCC 366 is content to state that point in official teaching without further exposition, nor a further definition, semantically, of what "immediately" means here. (To answer @PeterTurner's comment).  The church writes in its own style, and from within its own context.

  In Roman Catholic theology, Sententia certa refers to teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation.  These are below the Sententia fidei proxima level, but above Sententia communis.

Theological support for this position ... in general

It is Theologically Certain that souls are created at the moment they are joined with the body.
That is the argument made by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., as he makes the case, or at least attempt so, for promoting this position to the next echelon - Sententia fidei proxima.  Whether or not that appeal was successful is beyond the scope of this question, since the Catechism uses the term without further exposition.

  Positively stated, it is De Fide ex Jugi that human souls are
  immediately created by God.  Apart from the constant position of the
  Church since the time of St. Thomas, we have the recent declaration of
  Pius XII in Humani Generis to be quoted in the body of the proof. It
  is Theologically Certain that souls are created at the moment they are
  joined with the body. {SNIP}

Theological Support ... in detail

based on Immediate Creation of the Soul by God:
Source is Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. at the linked (exhaustive) argument.   Selected excerpts are:

  It is De Fide Definita that spiritual substances, and therefore the soul, do not emanate from the substance of God.  This from the condemnation of Pantheism in the Vatican Council, DB 1804.

  Though not defined, it is De Fide ex Jugi Magisterio that material Traducianism is wrong. Thus St. Thomas' statement, quoted above, indicates the ordinary teaching of the Church.

  Positively stated, it is De Fide ex Jugi that human souls are immediately created by God. Apart from the constant position of the Church since the time of St. Thomas, we have the recent declaration of Pius XII in Humani Generis to be quoted in the body of the proof.
  It is Theologically Certain that souls are created at the moment they are joined with the body.
  {SNIP}
  Part Three: “The Human Soul is Immediately Created by God Alone.”
  Ecclesiastical Documents

  The Vatican Council defined against the pantheists that, “If anyone
  says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least
  spiritual, emanated from the divine substance...Let him be anathemas
  DB 1801. Thus it is defined that however the soul originates, it is
  not by way of emanation from the deity.

  Benedict XII in 1341 condemned the errors of certain Orientals, on the
  occasion of prospects for reuniting the schismatic Armenians with
  Rome. "A certain teacher,” wrote the pope, "again introduced the
  teaching that the human soul of a son is propagated from the soul of
  his father, as his body is from the body of his father. He taught also
  that angels are propagated one from another. He gave as his reason for
  this that, since a rational existing human soul, and an angel existing
  in an intellectual nature are a kind of spiritual light, they
  propagate other spiritual lights from themselves" DB 533. The Armenian
  who held this doctrine was named Mechitriz, which means “paraclete."
  By condemning Mechitriz, Benedict XI condemned generationism, even of
  a spiritual kind, since the erroneous teaching referred to both human
  souls and the angels.

{my note here: the following point really stands out, since the Catholics believe that Jesus is both divine and human - his mother was wholly human}
**> the Bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum of Alexander VII (1661), the

  Pope declared that, "It is an ancient belief of the faithful of Christ
  regarding His most blessed Mother the Virgin Mary holding that her
  soul, in the first moment of its creation and infusion into the body,
  by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of
  Jesus Christ her Son, Redeemer of the human race, was preserved free
  from the stain of original sin” DB 1100.** Two centuries later, Pius IX
  adopted the statement of Alexander VII almost verbally in his
  definition of the Immaculate Conception. Alexander VII, therefore,
  pre-supposed that human souls are created and infused into the body by
  a special creative act of God.

  Pius XIII, in the Encyclical Humani Generis, when speaking on the
  subject of evolution of the human body, declared expressly that “the
  Catholic faith obliges us to hold that the human soul is immediately.
  created by God (animas a Deo immediate creari, Catholic fides nos
  retinere jubet)” - Weston translation, paragraph 37. Though speaking
  in context of the evolution of the first man, the incisum on the
  creation of the soul is of general import, as indicated by the plural
  collective animas creari.

  Sacred Scripture

  There is no direct, conclusive argument from Scripture proving that
  human souls are directly created by God.  True the soul of Adam is said
  to have been created by God (Genesis 2:7), but Scriptures are silent
  about the precise origin of souls after Adam.  A suasive argument can
  be deduced from such texts as “The dust returns to the earth from
  whence it came, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it”
  Ecclesiastes 12:7; and the words of the mother of the Maccabees to her
  sons, “I neither gave you breath, nor soul, nor life but the Creator of the world" II Maccabees 7:22. Both these texts show that God somehow specially produced the human soul, but not necessarily by immediate creation, which must be proved against spiritual generationism.

  The best argument from Scripture is indirect, reasoning from the different passages which say or describe the soul as spiritual and immortal. Then by analyzing the nature of spirituality or immortality we conclude that only God could produce a spirit.

  Patristic Evidence

  As noted before, the Patristic position on creationism labors under
  special difficulties because of the ambiguous (or better, hesitating)
  attitude of St. Augustine who favored immediate creation but feared
  its consequences in the Pelagian crisis. However there is a definite
  Patristic tradition which should not be minimized.

  As regards the Greek Fathers, it is commonly recognized that they had
  no sympathy with generationism but, as a group, professed immediate
  creation of the soul by God.

  The Latin Fathers before Augustine are most significant here; and
  among them we find, e.g., St. Hilary denying that the soul is
  propagated by the parents.(RJ 875); Lactantius declaring that, "This
  question may also be asked: whether the soul comes from the father
  rather than the mother, or whether it is generated by both. But I am
  justly delivered from this uncertainty, since none of these three is
  true...The power of giving origin to souls belongs to the one and only
  God" De Opificio Dei, 79.

  Theological Reason

  There are two distinct propositions that may be defended by
  theological reason: 1) that human souls are immediately created by God
  alone, and 2) that they are created at the time of their union with
  the body.

  The first assertum, which is properly our thesis, builds on the datum
  of revelation (also proveable by reason) that the soul is a spiritual
  substance. Given a substance which is spiritual, and therefore
  incomposite or integrally simple by nature, it cannot be divided to
  give "part of itself" to someone else, as Traducianism and even
  spiritual Gene rationism logically require.

  The second assertum answers the further question of when the soul is
  created, saying this takes place at the time of its infusion into the
  body. This follows logically on the defintion of the Council of Vienne
  (1311-1312), which declared:

  "We condemn as erroneous and opposed to Catholic truth every doctrine
  and opinion that rashly asserts that the substance of the rational,
  intellectual soul is not truly and by its own nature the form of the
  human body" DB 481.

  If, therefore, it is defined that the rational soul is truly, per se,
  and essentially the form of the body, then it must be created at the
  time at which it is joined with the body. Otherwise it could not be
  said that the soul (created by God) is essentially the form of the
  body; since then we should have either a pre-existing soul (minus a
  body) or an informed human body (minus a soul) - both of which are
  theologically untenable.

Postscript

When you work with concepts and doctrines about God being omnipresent, and thus unbound by time, the whole idea of "before" for God loses meaning.  This could lead to an understanding that God knowing you is a condition being unbounded by time at all.  While it is an interesting line of inquiry, it does not address your question.  God's creation of Adam, from the dirt as described in Genesis, and then Adam coming to life, and Adam having a soul, provides a useful template (or even a precedent) for the unification of body and soul at the time of creation-conception.


Reformed View of Titus 2:11 and Irresistible Grace

The defense of Titus 2:11 for the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace comes from the interpretation of the words in the verse "Grace of God."

John MacArthur,  a prominent Calvinist pastor and teacher writes this in his "John MacArthur Study Bible" commentary of Titus 2:11(NASB)-

  Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.."

  2:11 ...grace of God. Not simply the divine attribute of grace,
  but Jesus Christ Himself, grace incarnate, God's supremely gracious gift to fallen mankind.

OP assumes "the grace of God" is talking about God's divine attribute of grace, which indeed is the driving factor behind the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace," but is not what this verse is talking about according to the Calvinist. Calvinists do not hold to the position that it is Christ Himself who is performing the pulling towards God, but, in the words of John Calvin, "...it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit..."

In conclusion, to the Calvinist, this verse is not about Irresistible Grace at all; rather, it deals with soteriological truths.


Why didn't Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit?

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” NIV

The NIV does not make this implication. Perhaps you would get better answers on Hermeneutics.

KJV was written in English for the common man ... in the 17th century! English and many of its words have changed much since. It is entirely possible that this has to do with the KJV practically being an ancient manuscript that should be read from the perspective of its intended audience.

Since Adam and Eve did not die on that exact day it is safe to say that the translators did not intend to give that impression in Genesis 2:17. So there must be another explanation of what they meant by it. The most likely, I would say is that the word day at the time or in this context does not necessarily mean between sun up and sun down. What it means exactly in this case I cannot say. That is why I suggest the Hermeneutics site.

Some might argue that die means something other than actual death, but I really don't buy that, but that is strictly my opinion and not really part of your question. If you take one of those perspectives it could easily answer this question for you, though.


How accurate is the movie Prince of Egypt? A few questions about Moses

Answers to the Biblical Questions about Moses

Question 1

The idea that at any time during his life Moses didn't know that he was a Hebrew by birth has no support in the Bible. Though there is no explicit statement that he did know this during his youth and young adulthood, the story is written as if he knew all along.

Here are the verses that give this impression:

  The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her
  attendants walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds
  and sent her maid to bring it. When she opened it, she saw the child.
  He was crying, and she took pity on him. "This must be one of the
  Hebrews' children," she said. (Exodus 2:5-6)

We know, then, that Pharaoh's daughter, who raised him as her own son, knew that he was a Hebrew. Others in the court would likely also know that he was a Hebrew, both because the story of his discovery by Pharaoh's daughter was known to enough people (her attendants, Moses' parents and siblings, at minimum) and because he was of another race--Hebrew rather than Egyptian--so that he would look physically different from the Egyptians.

  Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and get you a
  nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?"

  Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Yes." So the girl went and called the
  child's mother. Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child and
  nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages." So the woman took
  the child and nursed it. When the child grew up, she brought him to
  Pharaoh's daughter, and she took him as her son. (Exodus 2:7-10)

In his infancy, Moses was nursed and cared for by his own mother in his own home. These days mothers typically nurse infants for a year or so. But in ancient times, two or three years was common. A three year nursing period is mentioned in 2 Maccabees 7:27. It is likely, then, that Moses had some memory of his Hebrew birth family from when he was a toddler.

Further, it is unlikely that Pharaoh's court would have no idea where a 2 or 3 year old non-Egyptian child suddenly showing up in the court came from. And Moses would have heard the talk about him in the court.

  She named him Moses, "because," she said, "I drew him out of the
  water." (Exodus 2:10)

In the cultures of Bible times, names, their meanings, and their stories were given great significance. Moses, according to the Bible story, was named for his being drawn out of the water. It is highly unlikely that he would have grown up without knowing the meaning of his name and the story behind it.

  One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and saw
  their forced labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his
  kinsfolk. (Exodus 2:11)

Here the story casually mentions Moses going out to see his own people when he had grown up. There is no mention of his discovering who he was and who his people were. It simply says that he went out to see his people, the Hebrews, as if he already knew who his people were.

All of this suggests that Moses knew that he was of Hebrew birth right from the start--that he grew up knowing this fact about his identity.

Question 2

Since, as mentioned above, Moses may have lived with his birth family up to age three, there is a good chance that he knew his older sister Miriam from the time of his early childhood.

Miriam's age is not given in the Bible. Traditional sources vary on how old she was compared to Moses. Most commonly she is believed to have been five to seven years older, though some sources say she was as much as eleven or even fourteen years older than Moses. (See, for example, the entry on Miriam in the Judaism 101 article, "Moses, Aaron and Miriam"; and the entry for Exodus 7:7 in Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible here.)

Aaron was was three years older than Moses (see Exodus 7:7).

All of this suggests that Moses may very well have had early memories of his two older siblings from the time he was a toddler living with his birth family.

The sister of Moses who watched him from a distance after he was put into the Nile in the ark, and who made the offer to Pharaoh's daughter to find a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby, is not named in the story of Moses' birth and infancy in Exodus 2:1-10.

However, it was almost certainly his sister Miriam, since the only siblings of Moses mentioned in the Bible are Miriam and Aaron.

In the genealogies of Levi, only Moses, Aaron, and Miriam are mentioned as children of Amram and Jochebed:

  Kohath was the forefather of Amram; the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, a descendant of Levi, who was born to the Levites in Egypt. To Amram she bore Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam. (Numbers 26:58-59)

and:

  The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. (1 Chronicles 6:3)

The three of them are also mentioned together in the story of Miriam and Aaron speaking out against Moses in Numbers 12, and later in a poetic prophecy in Micah:

I brought you up out of Egypt
   and redeemed you from the land of slavery.
I sent Moses to lead you,
   also Aaron and Miriam. (Micah 6:4)

All of this strongly suggests that it was indeed Miriam who watched over Moses when he was put into the Nile in an ark made of bulrushes (or papyrus).

Question 3

It is unlikely that the Israelites knew that Moses would lead them out of Egypt before it actually happened.

There is no indication in the Bible story of any such prior knowledge. Even when Moses did come to lead them out of slavery at God's command, he had to not only relate to them what God had said to him, but also do the miracles God had shown him, so that they would believe that he was sent by God (see Exodus 4:29-31).

How Accurate is The Prince of Egypt?

The answer is: "Not very."

A blurb in the opening credits reads:

  The motion picture you are about to see is an adaptation of the Exodus
  story.

  While artistic and historical license has been taken, we
  believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of
  a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people
  worldwide.

  The biblical story of Moses can be found in the book of Exodus.

In other words, when it comes to representing the actual story as it appears in Exodus, this movie falls somewhere between "Based on a true story" and "Inspired by a true story."

It would take too long to list all of the differences between the movie and the Bible story. Best to read the book of Exodus for yourself. But here are a few major differences:

As outlined above, the Bible gives no hint that Moses did not know who he was and where he was from, but strongly suggests the opposite.
The Bible says nothing about a brother-brother relationship between Moses and Rameses, which is a key plot element of this and some other artistic adaptations of the story. The Bible does not even say which Pharaoh was reigning at the time the Exodus took place.
In the Bible, after God commissions Moses to free the Israelites from slavery, Moses is accompanied to Egypt by his brother Aaron, not by his wife Zipporah. Aaron serves as Moses' spokesman in Egypt (see Exodus 4:10-16). And Exodus 18:1-6 makes it clear that Zipporah and their two sons were living with Moses' father-in-law Jethro during the events of the Exodus.

However, as with many movies and novels based on biblical events, The Prince of Egypt does capture something of the emotional power of the story in a way that may not come through with a simple reading of the text.


What was the impetus for restoring the consecration of virgins for women living in the world in the 20th Century?

Ultimately, the impetus for allowing women living in the world to be consecrated virgins was ecumenism and antiquarianism, which influenced almost all of Concilium's liturgical changes after Vatican II.
Pope Pius XII describes antiquarianism as (Mediator Dei):

[…] the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[Mt. 28:20] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Denying public vows of virginity to women living in the world
Condemnations
Innocent II "condemned as 'pernicious and detestable' [perniciosam et detestabilem] the custom of women wishing to be thought of as nuns, who lived in their own private dwellings rather than in monasteries."; Second Lateran Council (1139) can. 26 (Stegman 2019 p. 90):

We decree that the pernicious and detestable custom which has spread among some women who, although they live neither according to the rule of blessed Benedict, nor Basil nor Augustine, yet wish to be thought of by everyone as nuns, is to be abolished. For when, living according to the rule in monasteries, they ought to be in church or in the refectory or dormitory in common, they build for themselves their own retreats and private dwelling-places where, under the guise of hospitality, indiscriminately and without any shame they receive guests and secular persons contrary to the sacred canons and good morals. Because everyone who does evil hates the light, these women think that, hidden in the tabernacle of the just, they can conceal themselves from the eyes of the Judge who sees everything; so we prohibit in every way this unrighteous, hateful and disgraceful conduct and forbid it to continue under pain of anathema.

This is similar to reason #4 below.
1927 Holy Office decision
Reflecting "the same response that had been given by the Sacred Congregation in 1597 to the Patriarch of Venice" (Stegman 2019 p. 144), the Holy See in 1927 forbade public vows of virginity apart from entering a religious institute (AAS 19 p. 138):
To the dubium:

An expediat concedere facultatem dandi benedictionem et consecrationem Virginum mulieribus in saeculo viventibusWhether it is expedient [for the pope] to give [bishops] the faculty to bless and consecrate virgins living in the world

the Holy See responded:

Negative et nihil innovetur.Negative and no changes.

Also, "nonnulli locorum Antistites petiissent facultatem [several local bishops requested the faculty]."
Several reasons for the 1927 denial were opined by contemporary theologians, as quoted in "Explanations for the 1927 Denial" (PDF pp. 129-33) of Stegman 2019:

It puts "women in a new sacred state in the Church […] regulated directly by diocesan bishops, and not through the protection of the monastery."
It "could be likened merely to a private and simple vow, rather than being on par with a solemn vow that would invalidate a subsequent marriage."
"These virgins must wear special clothes, and especially to continuously wear the veil of consecration; but would the people of our time patiently put up with this when in the midst of society virgins are observed so dressed?"
It "would draw women away from religious life to a life that would be 'far from providing all the means of perfection that religious find in their vows of poverty and obedience, in their enclosure,
in their life in common, in their constitutions and the paternal vigilance of their superiors.'"

Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII's 1950 apostolic constitution on nuns Sponsa Christi, art. 3 §3:

§ 3. Solemnes antiquae formulae consecrationis Virginum, quæ in Pontificali Romano habentur, Monialibus reservantur.The ancient formula of the consecration of virgins in the Roman Pontifical is reserved to nuns [of solemn vows].

Consecration of virgins for women living in the world
Before Vatican II, the ceremony for consecrating a virgin,

De Benedictione et Consecratione Virginum(The Liturgy of the Consecration of Virgins according to the Roman Pontifical),

was reserved to women in religious orders.
Vatican II's constitution on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The rite for the consecration of virgins at present found in the Roman Pontifical is to be revised.

1970 revised rite
Concilium, the group that created the Novus Ordo Mass, Working Group 20b (Cœtus 20bis) implemented this revision. "Not until the sixth and last schema do Consilium archives reveal that the coetus considered the notion of consecrating virgins living in the world"; they also changed the eligibility requirements of a purpose of serving virginity (propositum servandae virginitatis) and carnal integrity (caro integritate) to a "requirement of chastity" (Stegman 2019 p. 121).
Stegman 2019 p. 125:

On May 31, 1970, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, under the authority of Pope Paul VI, decreed the promulgation of the new rite, which provided for the consecration of nuns as well as women living in the world.54 The new rite was to be effective January 6, 1971. “Thus the consecration became accessible no longer to only a few monastic orders (Carthusians and Benedictines) but also to all nuns with solemn vows and to women virgins living in the world.”55

This is in-line with the Vatican II changes that minimize the differences between the laity and religious (cf. "What is the history of the term “state of perfection” before, during, and after Vatican II?").
The 1983 Code (Can. 604) instated the "order of virgins" according to the 1970 liturgical rite, thus tacitly permitting consecrating virgins living in the world.
In the "spirit of Vatican II" and its love for novelty, the 2018 instruction Ecclesiae Sponsæ Imago on consecrated virgins doesn't even require perfect continence as a prerequisite:

Thus to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practised the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.

cf. Canonist Ed Peter's commentary
Resources
Public vows of virginity were permitted in very early church history, but since at least 1597, private vows only have been encouraged for women living in the world.
Virginity is a vocation, so perhaps the Church wanted to give more official support to it, considering the drastic decline in female religious life after Vatican II (or perhaps permitting it to women living in the world contributed to the collapse of post-Vatican II female religious life; cf. reason #4 above).*
cf. The Mystery of Love for the Single by Fr. Unger, O.F.M. Cap. (1958) ch. 5 and this informative blog by a consecrated virgin.
*appendix of Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II by Michael Davies:"• Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000—and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers."


Are there any major Protestant denominations that have rejected salvation by faith alone?

I intend to respond considering primarily the 'mainstream' Protestant denominations, with minimal (if any) reference to the more obscure sects. This is because I think the term 'Protestant' belongs to those who accept a handful of certain beliefs (trinity, faith-centered outlook, etc) that are often not present in the more rare denominations.

Referring to the same Wikipedia page on Sola Fide, it is stated that Methodism, unlike other Protestant denominations, stresses the value of good works in the attainment of salvation. Granted, this emphasis is hardly comparable to that of the Catholic/Orthodox Christian view on good works. For Methodism, good works is secondary to faith both in order and in value (I would say only the former is true for the Catholic/Orthodox view).

'Sola Methodism': Alone Among The Many

Methodism, like other Protestant denominations, firstly stresses faith. For Methodists, faith can be neglected and lost (unlike Southern Baptists who claim the doctrine of 'once saved, always saved'). Where Lutherans, Anglicans, and other denominations that are more similar to the Roman Catholic sentimentality also place importance on sanctification, Methodists, to my knowledge, are the only mainstream Protestant group that believes sanctifying grace (meaning essentially good works) actually holds a real place of value in salvation. Most other major Protestant denominations only hold that justifying grace (meaning essentially faith in Christ) has salvation-value. According to Methodist thought, "Salvation is not a static, one-time event in our lives. It is the ongoing experience of God's gracious presence transforming us into whom God intends us to be." This nearly liquid-like take on salvation as a process, or as something that is not necessarily fully achieved is contrary to most Protestant viewpoints on the matter, who place stress on the absolutism of faith and assurance of salvation. I think all other mainstream Protestant denominations hold that salvation is achieved on earth itself in such a way that good works follow 'naturally' or in a 'desire' that follows the action of being saved. For Luther, salvation was fully attainable through faith alone while on this earth: "A transfusion of righteousness therefore becomes vitally necessary. This transfusion of righteousness we obtain from Christ because we believe in Him." We see that Luther held that all things of Christian sentiment, including sanctification, not only came down to belief in Christ, but came from belief in Christ, both in order and in value. In other words, the Catholic/Orthodox sentiment of an enduring struggle of the will, and the reoccuring trials that test both the mental faith and the spiritual will (in a way that involves actual value at the moment, independent in value from preceeding faith) becomes obscured. While Methodists might hold to a certain degree within themselves notions such as these (in the sense that good works is secondary to faith in order and value) their official doctrine, as referred to above in a link, rather bluntly asserts a look on salvation as achieved through a 'process' rather than through one event of expressed or felt faith (in other words, though secondary to faith, good works are still somewhat independently meaningful in salvation value). This could be due to Wesley's natural affinity to tradition (unlike most other Reformers, Wesley did not hate with all of his gumption the traditions of the Church). Wesley's favor for tradition, though in less potency than his favor for faith, can be seen in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The Exceptions

The most central limit of this question is that it excludes (by no fault of its own) the many varying opinions within the said denominations. While Methodism is the only 'official' major Protestant denomination that seems to distance itself from Sola Fide, there are several individuals in certain Protestant denominations that hold opinions somewhat independent from their denomination's 'official' doctrine. A shining example of such a person is N.T Wright, who has caused a whirlwind of controversy in his work on Paul. Wright is an Anglican minister who has written several works addressing the topic of justification, and contrary to most Protestant opinions, Wright holds that Paul is not supporting Sola Fide, at least in the conventional sense. Wright supports the idea that good works are actually necessary in one's salvation, to 'prove' as a 'covenant sign' what Wright calls 'final justification'. This theology, whether Wright realizes it or not, is similar in essence to Catholic/Orthodox views of justification. This is only one example of a very popular individual within a denomination that 'officially' accepts Sola Fide, but who in any case does not act nor write as though Sola Fide were true. I think this is the case for many in the said Protestant denominations, but here begins the speculation and here ends the facts about the matter. That being said, there could be more to add to this answer, but I think any more added would detract rather than expand what is true.


What do protestants who believe our old bodies will be resurrected think that will look like?

This long passage may be sufficient to answer the question.

  1 Corinthians 15:35-54 (NIV)

  But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of
  body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to
  life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that
  will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
  But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed
  he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one
  kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
  There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but
  the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of
  the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor,
  the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in
  splendor.

  So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is
  sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in
  dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised
  in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

  If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it
  is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last
  Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but
  the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the
  dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly
  man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so
  also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the
  image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the
  heavenly man.

  I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot
  inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the
  imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
  but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye,
  at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be
  raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable
  must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with
  immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the
  imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is
  written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Many protestant preachers say that our body will be reconstructed from the remains of our body from the grave or where ever it is. The one that was blown up in a bomb explosion will also be recollected and rebuild from ashes. But it will be transformed to a heavenly body. That is what exactly this passage is talking about. The heavenly body will not look the same like the old one. A person who was born without legs will have two perfect legs. A blind person will no longer be blind and the deaf person will hear too.

I heard from many protestant preachers that the reason why Jesus still has the scars on his body is to keep it as a remembrance that Jesus suffered and died for us. The scars were left there intentionally on purpose.


What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood?

Jesus spoke in parables that were full of very familiar imagery to his hearers, turning them into spiritual lessons.

The Lord commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male descendants, a custom which was already being practiced before the time of Abraham, but God made it a token of his covenant with Abraham.

Likewise, there's no reason to believe that rainbows, being a natural phenomenon, did not exist before the Flood.  But as a part of God's covenant with Noah, he gave them a new, special significance.


Why is the KJV frequently said to be the "true" translation?

The King James (KJV) was translated from a different Greek text than most modern translations. In the early 1500s, Desiderius Erasmus took the best copies of the Greek New Testament available to him, and compared and collated them to create the Textus Receptus (TR), the first Greek New Testament to be printed rather than hand-written.

The TR was the Greek text used by the translators of the KJV as well as other early translators such as William Tyndale and Martin Luther.

In more recent years, thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts—including fragmentary copies as old as the 2nd century and whole New Testaments as old as the 4th—have been rediscovered. Many of the oldest manuscripts consistently disagree with the TR in many places.

For example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2 begins simply with "Father" in the oldest manuscripts, but "Our Father in heaven" (matching the wording of Matthew 6:9) in the TR.

Most modern scholars agree that it is more likely that Luke 11:2 originally said "Father", and that later copyists substituted Matthew's more expanded phrase—either out of reverence or because Matthew's language is more memorable. It makes more sense that the language of the two passages would converge over time than that it would diverge.

There are many other similar examples. 1 Corinthians 9:1 says "Jesus" in the oldest manuscripts, but "Jesus Christ" in the TR. 2 Corinthians 5:18 says "Christ" in the oldest manuscripts, but "Jesus Christ" in the TR. Again, it's easier to understand how the language would converge on a standard phrase over time.

Furthermore, the age of the manuscripts is evidence of their being closer to the original.

But KJV-only proponents have a different view. To them, the fact that these manuscripts were lost in the first place is reason enough to reject them. KJV-only proponents argue that the manuscripts the TR was based on were preserved because they were the most faithful to the original. According to this view, there are no early manuscripts from this tradition because they were used until they wore out; the other, inferior manuscripts were discarded and have only survived by accident.

Proponents of this view hold that the TR is the preserved Word of God, and that the modern, scholarly Greek New Testaments are inferior due to their lack of words such as "Christ" in 1 Corinthians 9:1 or "Jesus" in 2 Corinthians 5:18. The KJV, being the most popular English translation from the TR, is held by this group to be the English version of God's preserved Word.


Renunciation of the Devil in the Baptismal Rite is believed to be of Apostolic origin. The first explicit record of the use of this formula comes from Tertullian, where he says:

  "When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels" - De corona, iii.

In the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, does the individual explicitly "renounce the devil and his works" when he makes his confession of faith during baptism?

Yes.

What was the formal statement made by the person being baptized?

It is done in one of the following manner during the baptismal rite of an Infant: (src: Rite for the Baptism of One Child)

  The celebrant questions the parents and godparents:

  A.

  Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: And all his works?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: And all his empty promises?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Or B.

  Celebrant: Do you reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of God′s
  children?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: Do you reject the glamor of evil, and refuse to be mastered
  by sin?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

  Celebrant: Do you reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness?

  Parents and Godparents: I do.

During adult baptism, same question is asked directly to the person (src: Rite for baptism of adults). Note that during an infant baptism, the Parents and Godparents reply 'I do'. They are responding in the place of the Child. This rite is repeated on every Easter vigil too.

If this statement is no longer made, when did the practice cease?

As far as I know, this practice has not ceased.


What denominations/people don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event and why?

The issue here is not the whole book of Genesis, but just the first few chapters. The book is actually a compilation of several writings preserved and assembled at various points. It is widely believed across most Christian traditions that most of the book is literal historical fact.

The issue you've heard rumblings of stems from the first couple chapters, specifically the creation story. There are several major views on this and how it is interpreted depends on how different factors are weighed. The issue is certainly large enough that it would be impossible to generalize across all of Christianity.

However, the breakdown is not quite as easy as your question makes out, because it isn't a split over history vs. parable. Those are two ends of the spectrum, but most of the major denominations are going to fall somewhere between those two extremes.

I am not going to detail the positions of all the views, but I want to give you a few terms and groupings that will help any further research you do on this issue. First you have your Young Earth Creationists. These folks are going to be roughly what you would classify as "literal historical" in that they read words like "day" at face value as something equivalent to our 24 hours. You also have Old Earth Creationists who believe that the creation account is literal history but that "day" might mean "age" and so we don't have a frame of reference for how long each thing took. Please understand I'm painting with very broad stokes here. In between those, you also have something called the Framework view that takes the Genesis account quite literally, but does some textual gymnastics, classifies the writing as a kind of poetry that we've lost the key to, and puts it all back together in a different order. In a way you could call this "parable" in that the text is trying to give us the gist of what happened without being scientific about the details. However this view is actually not the extreme that you probably hear rumored. Farther out lies the Theistic Evolution view that really discounts the entire creation process except for allowing that God put some sort of evolution in motion and possibly kept it on track. This sort of view must necessarily discount the text as a fictional rendering inspired for some purpose other than to tell us about the actual origins of the universe.

Given those major viewpoints (and bearing in mind that there are lots of minor modifications), some generalizations can be drawn about denominations and their views, but it is remarkably hard to do so with any level of meaning when most of the major denominations are actually showing fracture lines along the issue. Some openly embrace multiple positions, some are fighting a loosing battle to claim a single position. Only in smaller (and thus kind of too specific to list here) denominations are there consistently held positions on this matter.


Will there be ongoing co-creation (aka technological development) in heaven?

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This does not specifically refer to co-creation, but then neither does any other scripture in the Bible.  So, if we are co-creators here on Earth, as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic church, then Matthew 18:18 may lend some support that this might carry over to heaven.

One might also ask "Why would poets in a glorified state (fully freed from themselves and truly free to fully be themselves) not write poetry and gadget makers make gadgets--as a form of worship integrated with their personalities?" Exposure to the presence of God (and the perfected images, as well as the rest of creation, reflecting that glory) would certainly generate the need for an outlet of worship and being all the creature one is created to be would be a good way to declare "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory."


Is this interview with Pope Francis going to change Christianity?

Pope Francis ‘abolishes hell’, saying souls of unrepentant sinners will simply disappear!

Traditional conceptions of hell have been depicted in classic works of art such as The Last Judgement by Hieronymus Bosch, who died in 1516

The story is certainly bogus or at least misleading.

  Okay, Pope Francis probably did not say: “There is no hell.” But that’s the headline story for today—for Holy Thursday. And while maybe the interviewer is responsible for an inaccurate quotation, the Pope himself is responsible for the ensuing confusion.

  The Vatican, naturally, has rushed out another “clarification.” Notice, however, that the Vatican statement does not actually deny that Pope Francis uttered those words. Because the truth is that nobody actually knows exactly what he said.

  Here is the statement attributed to the Pontiff, in an article that appeared in La Repubblica, regarding the fate of unrepentant sinners:

  They are not punished. Those who repent obtain God’s forgiveness and join the ranks of those souls who contemplate Him. But those who do not repent, and so cannot be forgiven, disappear. There is no hell; there is the disappearance of sinful souls.

  That quotation appeared in a piece by Eugenio Scalfari, who interviewed the Holy Father earlier this week. Following his usual practice, Scalfari did not record the session, nor did he even take notes. The veteran journalist—who, by the way, is nearing his 94th birthday—relied on his memory to reconstruct the conversation. So the words that were in quotation marks in his article may or may not be the words of Pope Francis.

  So today’s Vatican statement is certainly true: “No quotation in the aforementioned article can therefore be considered a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.” - Confusion—now about hell—is the hallmark of this pontificate

After the interview with the Pontiff, Scalfari quoted him as saying: “There is no hell. There is the disappearances of sinful souls,” the Vatican responded.

The Vatican press office quickly issued a statement noting that Scalfari’s quotation cannot be considered “a faithful transcription” of the Pope’s actual words. Scalfari, who has now interviewed Pope Francis several times, does not record the sessions or take notes; he relies on his memory to reconstruct the conversations.


Old Testament verses other than Genesis 3:15 speak of the "seed" of a woman. How, then, does it indicate a virgin birth?

Women and their seed is merely a reference to the women's offspring, children, and/or posterity. 1

Gen 16:10 is in reference to Sarah's descendants being unnumerable

Gen 24:60 Rebekah's descendants will possess the gate of those that hate them

Gen 4:25 talks about Seth being another son since Cain slew Abel

Lev 22:13 mentions a priest's widowed daughter without a child

1 Sam 2:20 Elkanah and his wife will be blessed with children as they have prayed them

Gen 3:15 is about enmity between Eve's descendants and Satan's descendants/followers

None of these prophecies explicitly refer to the virgin birth. If it is your understanding that it does, none of the other references agree or disagree, as they are about different people.

1 http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2233.htm


What privileges and powers does the Prophet of the LDS Church have in his office as Seer?

The Book of Mormon talks about seership in Mosiah 8:13-18.

  13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a
  man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can
  look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a
  gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can
  look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he
  ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in
  them, the same is called seer.

  14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of
  Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has
  this high gift from God.

  15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

  16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and
  a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the
  power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given
  him from God.

  17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things
  which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or,
  rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall
  come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by
  them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise
  could not be known.

  18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work
  mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow
  beings.

Further, President Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1980, spoke about 14 fundamentals to know about following a prophet. In that speech, he declared some of the authority and rights the prophet has while he maintains his office. I've summarized them here but they all demand further explanation and detail (because, I believe, many of these claims are very bold and forward) -- I recommend an in-depth study of the full article and its references.

  The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
  The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
  The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
  The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
  The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any
  time.
  The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
  The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know
  The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
  The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
  The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
  The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
  The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
  The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
  The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.


Who was the first major Christian figure to popularize a figurative interpretation of Genesis?

I think it's clear that your assumption is wrong, and that figurative interpretations of the Genesis were always common amongst scholarly interpreters, such as for example St. Augustine. At the very least, he thinks that the transgression in the Garden of Eden was in fact of a sexual nature, and therefore the account as it is, is figurative.

Further, we are somewhat well aware that medieval culture in Europe was steeped in allegorical thinking. Even something like a bestiary, a compendium of beasts, would include several allegorical beasts as stand-ins for vices, for specific historical characters, peoples, etc...

To make a further point however, the idea that figurative, allegorical and literal interpretations of the same text were mutually exclusive is very modern idea.

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

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


Is using medication derived from tissue of aborted fetuses compatible with Catholic teaching?

Is using medication or vaccines derived from tissue of aborted fetuses compatible with Catholic teaching?
The short answer is no, but it is a little more complicated than a simple one word answer.
Apparently there is at least one Catholic Bishop who is speaking against this calling it a possible beginning of the apocalypse in this YouTube video: Abortion-tainted mandatory COVID vaccine would be the beginning of the Apocalypse': Bishop Schneider
It seems that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a morally objectionable vaccine due to its’ development with aborted tissues.

Why is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine controversial?
The controversy over the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has to do with the way it is manufactured.
The vaccine is made using a modified cold virus called an adenovirus, which trains the body’s immune system to recognize the coronavirus. These adenoviruses are grown in a cell line called PER.C6, which was originally derived from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985. To create the cell line, scientists isolated a cell from the fetus and cloned it to produce cells of the same genetic makeup. After the adenovirus grows in the cells, the cells themselves are purified away, essentially removed, to create the vaccine.
The moral implications of COVID-19 vaccines manufactured using cell lines derived from an aborted fetus have sparked a lively online debate. People who are opposed to abortion are wondering if they can be vaccinated in good conscience.
Some Catholic bodies, including the commission on COVID-19 appointed by the Vatican, have urged people to take any vaccine available to them, stressing the need for protection from the virus, which has killed over half a million people in the U.S. alone.
Other Catholic bishops have deemed the Johnson & Johnson vaccine “morally compromised,” saying that other vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna’s, are preferable to one linked to the act of abortion.
Some Catholics have interpreted these statements as episcopal guidance to avoid the Johnson & Johnson vaccine altogether.
On social media, some users have inaccurately claimed that aborted fetal tissue was used as an ingredient in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which the company has strongly denied.
Why has this vaccine sparked such a debate? What are the specifics of issues in play? We reviewed the science on the vaccines and spoke with biological ethicists and theologians to understand and explain both the facts and the varied ethical perspectives.

Apparently, there is ”no formal guidelines by the magisterium concerning this topic”! See the below letter of Mgr E. Sgreccia.
I will be using the letter from Pontificia Academia Pro Vita to Mrs Debra L. Vinnedge as a reference point.

Dear Mrs Debra L.Vinnedge,
On June 4, 2003, you wrote to His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with a copy of this letter forwarded to me, asking to the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith a clarification about the liceity of vaccinating children with vaccines prepared using cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses. Your question regarded in particular the right of the parents of these children to oppose such a vaccination when made at school, mandated by law. As there were no formal guidelines by the magisterium concerning that topic, you said that catholic parents were often challenged by State Courts, Health Officials and School Administrators when they filled religious exemptions for their children to this type of vaccination.
This Pontifical Academy for Life, carrying out the commission entrusted to us by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in answer to your request, has proceeded to a careful examination of the question of these "tainted" vaccines, and has produced as a result a study (in Italian) that has been realized with the help of a group of experts. This study has been approved as such by the Congregation and we send you, there enclosed, an English translation of a synthesis of this study. This synthesis can be brought to the knowledge of the interested officials and organisms.
A documented paper on the topic will be published in the journal "Medicina e Morale", edited by the Centra di Bioetica della Universita Cattolica in Rome.
The study, its synthesis, and the translation of this material took some time. We apologize for the delay.
With my best regards,
Sincerely yours,
+E. Sgreccia

Although the study deals with vaccines, the same should apply to drugs in general. Sorry for the length of this article, but seeing the importance of this issue, I deem it necessary to let the Vatican professionals speak their minds!

The position of the ethical problem related to these vaccines
From the point of view of prevention of viral diseases such as German measles, mumps, measles, chicken pox and hepatitis A, it is clear that the making of effective vaccines against diseases such as these, as well as their use in the fight against these infections, up to the point of eradication, by means of an obligatory vaccination of all the population at risk, undoubtedly represents a "milestone" in the secular fight of man against infective and contagious diseases.
However, as the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of foetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted, and the viruses were subsequently attenuated and cultivated from human cell lines which come likewise from procured abortions, they do not cease to pose ethical problems. The need to articulate a moral reflection on the matter in question arises mainly from the connection which exists between the vaccines mentioned above and the procured abortions from which biological material necessary for their preparation was obtained.
If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human foetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, even though this evil was carried out forty years ago?
Before proceeding to consider this specific case, we need to recall briefly the principles assumed in classical moral doctrine with regard to the problem of cooperation in evil 9, a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others.
The principle of licit cooperation in evil
The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.
Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.10 Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question11.
A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted12.
Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.
Application to the use of vaccines prepared from cells coming from embryos or foetuses aborted voluntarily**
In the specific case under examination, there are three categories of people who are involved in the cooperation in evil, evil which is obviously represented by the action of a voluntary abortion performed by others: a) those who prepare the vaccines using human cell lines coming from voluntary abortions; b) those who participate in the mass marketing of such vaccines; c) those who need to use them for health reasons.
Firstly, one must consider morally illicit every form of formal cooperation (sharing the evil intention) in the action of those who have performed a voluntary abortion, which in turn has allowed the retrieval of foetal tissues, required for the preparation of vaccines. Therefore, whoever - regardless of the category to which he belongs — cooperates in some way, sharing its intention, to the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above-mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil as the person who has performed that abortion. Such participation would also take place in the case where someone, sharing the intention of the abortion, refrains from denouncing or criticizing this illicit action, although having the moral duty to do so (passive formal cooperation).
In a case where there is no such formal sharing of the immoral intention of the person who has performed the abortion, any form of cooperation would be material, with the following specifications.
As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from foetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that, within the chain of production-distribution-marketing, the various cooperating agents can have different moral responsibilities.
However, there is another aspect to be considered, and that is the form of passive material cooperation which would be carried out by the producers of these vaccines, if they do not denounce and reject publicly the original immoral act (the voluntary abortion), and if they do not dedicate themselves together to research and promote alternative ways, exempt from moral evil, for the production of vaccines for the same infections. Such passive material cooperation, if it should occur, is equally illicit.
As regards those who need to use such vaccines for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that, apart from every form of formal cooperation, in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells. The cooperation is therefore more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines.
However, in this situation, the aspect of passive cooperation is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the "culture of death" which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way.
Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection14 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.
In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population - especially with regard to pregnant women.
To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;

as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;

the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);

such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.

Update:

Pope Francis will receive the coronavirus vaccine this week, he revealed during an interview on Italian TV.
Speaking with TG5 news, the pope said he will receive the first shot and declared it an "ethical duty" for everyone to get vaccinated.
The pope’s personal doctor died of complications of COVID-19 while in the hospital for treatment for cancer.
"Everyone should get the vaccine," the pope said, according to the Today Show. "Without a vaccine, you are playing with health, life, but also with the health of others."
The pope’s comments are only the latest he has made in support of the vaccination efforts going on around the globe.
Previously, the pope said it was "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive the vaccine despite the fact it was developed using fetal tissue from abortions during research. - Pope Francis to receive COVID-19 vaccine this week The pope has continually supported the vaccine effort


Do JWs have vestments, clothing, or "sacred" or symbolic objects that are used for any particular occasion or position?

No, Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any special garments, nor is there a clergy class.
They do try to dress up for their ministry and Kingdom Hall meetings, according to the principle at 1 Timothy 2:9, 10. Different cultures will have different expectations for what constitutes "appropriate" and "modest" dress and grooming, so there are no specific rules.

1 Timothy 2:9, 10 (NWT)
9 Likewise, the women should adorn themselves in appropriate dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive clothing, 10 but in the way that is proper for women professing devotion to God, namely, through good works.

You can observe what JWs look like around the world in the side-scrolling images on jw.org.

In terms of symbolic objects, Jehovah's Witnesses use unleavened bread and red wine as symbols during the Memorial of Jesus' Death once each year.


What is the difference between mind and soul (if any)

If you do an in depth study of the the Greek on 'soul' and 'spirit' they are essentially the same thing. However they are different is that one is viewed heavenward, and one earthward. The soul is the essential life of man ‘looking earthward’ and the ‘spirit’ that same principle of life breathed (like wind) into man from God, that can look towards and experience God.   I say 'can look' because the whole spirit/soul, including mind, emotions and will, the higher, as well as lower powers of our nature, are the seat and subject of original sin. The 'natural man' is thereby disabled and made opposite to all spiritual good. Consequently the conflict of which the Scriptures speak between the higher and lower powers of nature,—is between nature and what is not nature, between the old and new man. The new principle is something supernatural communicated by the Spirit of God. The new man is called spiritual rather than soul-ual, because it is the essential nature of man looking heaven ward called 'spirit'.

You can see these ideas at work in this passage.  Just as the soul 'thinks' so the spirit 'thinks'. That is, mind is both representative of the soul and the spirit as part of our essential life.  The spirit is not of a different nature of the soul, the are the same, only under a different perspective.  Only your spirit/soul knows your thoughts. Also receiving the Spirit of Christ is the same as receiving the mind of Christ:

  For who knows a person 's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
   The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “ For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:11-16, ESV)

For a deeper analysis of the subject one can refer to trichotomous versus dichotomous views of man.


How much were the 30 pieces of silver (Judas's payment) worth?

Assuming that the 30 pieces of silver are the tetradachmas that Thayer suggests, the total weight of the 30 pieces of silver would be 15 troy ounces, or something not too far from 1 pound of english measure.  (Not that most Europeans would need the equivalent, but its roughly 466 grams). Per this source, 1 troy ounce of silver, trading on May 20, 2013, is $21.64.  The total dollar value of 15 such ounces would thus be $324.60.  Phrased exactly according to the terms of your question (What would the value of the metal be), that is exactly your answer.

That said, it's also a completely bogus number. You really are much better off thinking of it as half a year's wages.  Here's why:

$324.60 would have an impact far in excess of the current value nearly 2000 years ago.  The things that one could do with $324.60 in today's terms is completely incomparable to what could be done back then.  To say you could maybe a small computer with that, for example, is completely irrelavant.  Even to compare that "two weeks worth of groceries for my family" is bogus, because $324.60 would fed a family for a heck of a lot longer than that.
The price of the metal discounts all sorts of other economic factors.  Today, silver is a rather nontraditional investment.  Back then, it was money.  We no longer peg the dollar to precious metal.  They did.
Pieces of silver were regularly adulterated - once monarchs learned they could shave the value of the metal in a coin, inflation became commonplace.  Even if we knew what type of coin, we don't have data as to the purity of the coin in question.
The concept of a middle class was much more of a rarity.  30 pieces of silver to the very rich was very little.  To the very poor, it was a lot.  Most moderns in the West are neither, and as such the emotional reaction to the money (which after all, really was the point for Judas) would be very different from the actual value.
Should you be able to unearth these coins, their historical value would well outstrip the actual value of the bullion.  I know where I could put my hands on a parchment that was signed in 1776.  I guarantee you that its best sale price would not be fetched by carefully removing the ink where a bunch of American white guys put their 'John Hancock''s on it and reuse it as a sheet of paper.
The time element really is significant.  The minimum wage in the United States is approximately $7.25/hr.  That means, in the United States, it would take a maximum of 45 hours to earn that much money.  As a country, the United States is sufficient rich in labor saving devices and capital to make that a reality.  In Bangladesh, the minimum wage is $0.11/hr, meaning that it is not unreasonable to assume it would take an individual 3000 hours (or nearly one and a half years working 40 hour weeks) to collect the same.  The difference between 1 standard week and more than 17 months is due to a difference in living conditions between two countries at the same time in history.  When you start doing temporal calculations, the math gets way worse.

As a result of each of these concerns, plus others not listed, Wikipedia is right to list in terms of days' wages.  Imagine, for example, what half a year's wages would mean to you (regardless of your socioeconomic status).  That struggle - choosing between money and God - was what was going on in Judas' heart.  (Well, amongst other things, at least).  To compare apples to apples, you really should be comparing your situation to his.  The best proxy I can think up is a percentage of your regular income.  Half a year's worth of my salary would certainly be tempting indeed.

Note: More on the drachma can be had at this link


In the Roman Catholic Church, the first eight days of the Easter Season make up the Octave of Easter and are celebrated as Solemnities of the Lord according to General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar.

As each of those days is a Feast of the first order, fasting is clearly inappropriate.

Indeed, because The fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost are celebrated in joyful exultation as one feast day, or better as one "great Sunday," (ibid) it may be inappropriate to fast throughout the Easter season. St Augustine said of Sundays, "Fasting is set aside and prayers are said standing, as a sign of the Resurrection, which is also why the Alleluia is sung on every Sunday". (Ep. 55, 28: CSEL 342, 202)


Is Christianity functionally polytheistic?

This is really more a logic/philosophy question than a Christianity one.

And it is logically similar to this scenario:

  Twin brothers get separated from their mother and from each other at a young age. As adults they later reunite and discuss their mother, to find that their childhood memories are imperfect, and sometimes conflict. Does this mean they have multiple mothers?

Clearly not.

While the brothers may have different memories or opinions about their mother, they are still borne of the same mother.

Another example:

  I love my boss. My coworker hates the same boss. Does this mean we have multiple bosses?

Clearly not.

Differing and conflicting perceptions and opinions of the same being/entity/object does not mean the being/entity/object in question is actually multiple beings/entities/objects.  It simply means our perceptions and opinions are different and often times imperfect.

EDIT

Following from these examples, it is clear that the twins, and me and my coworker do not indeed have multiple mothers/bosses. Likewise, Christianity does not indeed worship multiple Gods.

Going a step further, to more directly address the actual question, nor do the twins functionally have multiple different mothers--that is to say, one doesn't send Mother's day cards to one city, and the other to another city.  Nor do they function as if they have multiple mothers; that is to say, neither brother sends Mother's day cards to multiple addresses.

Nor do my coworker and I functionally have multiple bosses; I don't call my boss on one extension, while my coworker uses another.  Nor do we function as if we have multiple bosses; I don't call one of multiple extensions when I need a PO approved.

And as applied to Christianity, the various sects/denominations/faiths/traditions all functionally worship the same God1, so they do not functionally have multiple gods, and no Christian individual prays to multiple gods2, thus do not function as if they are polytheistic.

1Some minority Christian faith groups try to tie Christianity to other non-Christian belief systems; such as Christianity and New Age, where the nature of God is "changed" (i.e. "God is the Universe").  In such a belief system, where the adherents are worshiping "the Universe", they are not in the strictest sense worshiping the same God that main-line Christianity worships, who is distinct from the created Universe. In this regard, and in this regard only, it may be possible to claim that Christianity as a whole is "functionally polytheistic," in that two subsets worship each a distinct [Gg]od. But in my mind, this still is not the same as "functionally polytheistic."

2Some Christian sects do have polytheistic undertones.  Mormonism for example, has some polytheistic (or henotheistic) undertones. Sometimes Catholicism is considered "polytheistic," especially in certain parts of the world where praying to the saints is hard to distinguish from worshiping the saints. But these possible examples of "functional polytheism" have nothing to do with the various Christian faiths, and have everything to do with the specific faiths being (or appearing to be) truly polytheistic, so I don't believe they apply to this question.

EDIT #2

I think it comes down to a question of identity (or the external appearance of identity) of the [Gg]od(s) being worshiped.

Christian sects, with rare exception (see 1 above) believe in a God that share the same identity. They all believe God wrote (either directly or indirectly) the 66 books of the Bible, they believe God became human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, and they believe God died a torturous death on behalf of sinners.

Whether a Christian group worships the God thusly identified through song, acts of service, acts of war, or any other means, the identity of the God is the same.

This is distinct from the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship (or appear to worship) the same God, because in this case the identity of the two Gods is distinct (at least on the surface). Christians believe in a God identified above. Muslims believe in a God that never took on human form, and who sent a final prophet, Muhammad, etc.

(Whether, upon further investigation, we can determine that the identity of the [Gg]od worshiped by Christians and Muslims is indeed the same is for another discussion. The only point I'm making here is that it's easy to see how they may appear to be different Gods.)

Based on this identity-of-God argument, I would say that Christianity as a whole (not withstanding fringe groups that subscribe to an alternate identity of god), is not functionally polytheistic.


How would a Catholic explain the absence of the mass in the Epistle to the Hebrews?

The Epistle to the Hebrews is not aware of the Mass because it is not a person. It's a letter on a certain subject to certain people. It talks about the High Priesthood; it isn't an instruction manual on what today has come to be called the Mass. Not all teachings will be in all books.

Hebrews isn't an instruction manual for saying the Mass. It's a letter directed to Jewish Christians in danger of apostasy (Hebrews 2:1), explaining the sacrifice of Christ with particular emphasis on themes in the Old Testament that would have been very familiar to the audience. It is by not intended to be comprehensive ("I have written to you rather briefly", Hebrews 13:22), but it does mean to explore in-depth a particular theme. The author invokes Melchizedek and the High Priesthood, and stresses the importance of Christ's precious blood, in comparison to the blood of animals. He calls the bloody sacrifices that came before, now abolished, mere shadows of Christ's perpetual sacrifice. The High Priesthood of Christ is the primary message, and it's directed to those who have lost clear sight of even basic teachings:

  Hebrews 5
  [...] 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered;
  9 and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,
  10 declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
  11 About this we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing.
  12 Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food.

So he would prefer to discuss the basics, but the problem, he judges, has now advanced far beyond the basics, and can only be remedied by detailed discussion of the High Priesthood of Christ.

Not all teachings will be repeated in all books, and the books will have different themes and will emphasize different points. For example, the following teaching (on an aspect of what today is called the Mass) is also not present in Hebrews:

  1 Corinthians 11
  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
  27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
  28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
  29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Apparently, there is something very important about not eating the bread, not drinking the cup. Does "drinking" mean that you should not try to have faith if you are unworthy? That you should not do good if you are unworthy? Or that you should starve until you are worthy? No, it means you must literally not drink and eat something (Someone, Catholics might say, but let's not get into that), because "proclaiming the death of the Lord" with His blood on your own hands is going to end badly for you. Where is this vital teaching in Hebrews? Nowhere, because in Hebrews something else was at issue: Jewish Christians focused on bloody sacrifices, and not the sacrifice of the High Priest.

For the record, some Catholics do use Hebrews to talk extensively on the subject of the Eucharist. I found, for example, "The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek". Two relevant paragraphs can be found in that document by searching for "clean priesthood" and "brick in the face".


What's the biblical basis that Joseph adopted Jesus?

I think the answer to your question turns on the underlying assumptions on what it means to adopt someone or for them to be adopted.  Are you asking:

For a legal standing of Jesus adoption by Joseph, wherein a court would accept that Jesus is legally Joseph's son?
For a simple proof that Jesus was accepted as Joseph's son by his family and by society in general?

I believe we may not be able to adequately establish the first, but the second can be, and I will attempt to establish it in the remainder of this answer.

First, let's establish the simple facts of Jesus birth, from scripture:

  18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. 20 When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, 25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25 - NET)

From the account, we can see that Jesus was conceived within Mary by the Holy Ghost.  Joseph took Mary legally as his wife prior to Jesus' birth, though they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born. Based on this, it seems clear that there may not have needed to be any real "adoption" per se, but that Jesus would have been accepted as Joseph's son without any need for adoption. It seems pretty clear that by following the divine directive and marrying Mary that Joseph accepted his place as Jesus earthly father and "adopted" Jesus in a very real way. Only Mary and Joseph would have known otherwise.

From Luke, we know that Mary (and Joseph) are originally from Nazareth:

  26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:26-28 - NET)

So Mary was living in Nazareth originally.  However, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:

  1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes. 2 This was the first registration, taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 Everyone went to his own town to be registered. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David. 5 He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7 - NET)

After this they were apparently in Bethlehem for quite some time, rather than returning to Nazareth. They waited for the wise men to arrive, then fled to Egypt, and eventually returned, after Herod died.  Rather than return to Bethlehem, he went back to Nazareth:

  19 After Herod had died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up and took the child and his mother and returned to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. After being warned in a dream, he went to the regions of Galilee. 23 He came to a town called Nazareth and lived there. (Matthew 2:19-23)

So, it's not entirely clear, but certainly plausible, that those living in Nazareth didn't have any idea about the exact circumstances of Jesus' birth, as Joseph and Mary were not around Nazareth for a substantial period of time. They certainly did not know that Joseph wasn't really the father.

It's clear from later accounts in scripture that the townspeople believed Joseph was Jesus' natural father:

  54 Then he came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers? 55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? And aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 And aren’t all his sisters here with us? Where did he get all this?” 57 And so they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own house.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:54-58)

So regardless of what we consider the "legal adoptive status" of Jesus with respect to Joseph, the townspeople, at the very least, accepted him as a legitimate member of Mary and Joseph's family, calling their other children Jesus' brothers and sisters.  This seems to corroborate that Joseph's action of marrying Mary was also an act of adopting Jesus from a practical perspective.

I don't know that this can allow us to "legally" call Joseph as Jesus' "adoptive" father, and I am not familiar with Jewish custom or law on this point.


Is the Holy Spirit offered worship at any instance?

I do not think there is a reference in the Bible to worshipping the Spirit specifically and I can only think of one reference where worshipping the Father  is specifically mentioned (John 4:21). Almost all references simply mean worshipping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as they are one.

Yet we can know that each person of the Trinity has a distinct operation in the relation to the other persons. When the Bible refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified.  Almost all references to worship in the Bible are not specific to any particular person in the trinity, therefore by definition all three persons are being worshipped in almost every case.

However when any special impression is made of the special property of any person in the words of our worship; then the worship is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.   For example when the Palms or other songs of worship are sung it the words refer to the original will behind the creation, we might be said to be worshipping the Father.  If mention is made of Gods powerful word in the creation, it could be said we are worshipping the Son.  If we mentioned the perfection and finished works of creation itself we could be said to be worshipping the Spirit.


According to the Catholic Church, does any child have the "right" to be baptized?

It is always helpful and useful to start with definitions

From the "PENNY CATECHISM" under Grace and Prayer

  139 What is Grace?
  Grace is a supernatural gift of God, freely bestowed upon us for our sanctification and salvation.

  140 How must we obtain God's grace?
  We must obtain God's grace chiefly by prayer and the holy Sacraments.

And From the "PENNY CATECHISM" under Baptism

  256 What is Baptism?
  Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members
  of the Church.

Answering

It readily follows since Baptism is a Sacrament, a means by which we obtain God's grace,  a supernatural gift1 of God, freely bestowed upon us for our sanctification and salvation, it is not a right but a gift freely given to be freely and worthily received.

1. cf. gift definition.