Abortion and infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mooshelf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mooshelf

Guest
I recently came across someone claiming that the churches definition and teachings on abortion historically refute infallibility. I don’t have the historical knowledge to refute them essentially. I can’t link the source for this because I’m new.

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):
He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.” The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):
He Issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman’s life.

Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to “the fetus.” The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

Sorry for how long the post is. I’m just not sure how to deal with something this vast.

Thanks for the help everyone, I got sufficient explanation. Also, I looked into the part about the apostolic constitutions, and the only available reference to abortion was condemning it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this is rubbish. Just because a website claims something, does not make it so. Read the Didache. The Didache

you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten
This is from the first century. Who am I gonna believe? Someone in the 21st century, or someone in the 1st?
 
The Church has never to my knowledge accepted abortion. Early abortions were condemned as a form of contraception for many centuries but in more recent times knowledge of fatal development has changed that. All direct abortions are now opposed as the taking of life. ‘Infallible’ means statements made in a formal way and isn’t particularly relevant to consistently in teaching on abortion. If you want more challenging things to look at try usury, slavery and religious tolerance.
 
These sound like really old, really false, really malicious "urban legends (lies).

So, did they have ultrasounds in the 300s? AYKM?

These people are truly desperate and/or truly despicable.
 
Mooshelf said:
Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely false. Tell him to quote the chapter and verse of the Apostolic Constitutions which are available online which say this. He won’t be able to.

Until the 19th century some (not all) people had the incorrect SCIENTIFIC idea that a fetus (Latin for “little one”) only becomes alive at the “quickening” when the mother can first feel him moving around. So morally speaking it was uncertain whether killing a fetus younger than that was murder or contraception, BOTH of which have ALWAYS been unequivocally condemned as mortal sins by the Catholic Church and by the Church of Israel for centuries BC. In the 19th century scientists showed that the union of the father’s sperm cell and the mother’s ovum cell produces an entirely new and unique living and growing human being. Then all civilized countries (including some very anti-Catholic ones) quickly moved to increase the penalty for the crime of abortion of a young fetus/embryo, now having proof that it is definitely murder.

Incidentallly the 19th century scientists in the process also disproved the old theory that the father’s sperm (literally “seed”) contained everything needed for the new human being and the mother merely provided a “fertile” place for it to grow, like fertile soil to support a plant. Interestingly the Bible alludes to this scientific fact in the very beginning of Genesis when it prophesies about the “seed” of the virgin Mary the new Eve, saving mankind from the Fall. The only reference in all of ancient literature of a woman rather than a man having a “seed”.
 
It has always been considered a mortal sin, but it depending on the facts of the case as to whether it was the sin of murder or contraception.

Taking an innocent life has always been considered intrinsically evil. The Church infallibly hands this truth on for all time. Whether this has been committed in a particular case or cases, is not a matter of infallibility.

If it were, we would never need courts to hold trials for murder, since the Pope could just be called on to infallibly judge the facts of every case.
 
Last edited:
Welshrabbit said:
Stopped reading here. Anyone opting for CE instead of AD has an agenda…
Click to expand...
Or is accustomed to that usage in daily life. Plus, since when is having an agenda automatically bad? Wouldn’t it depend on the agenda itself and how it meshes with yours?
 
Who is accustomed to using CE instead of AD in daily life?

An agenda is bad when it seeks to minimize the awesome contributions Christianity has made to this world.

Wouldn’t you as an aspiring Catholic agree?
 
Welshrabbit said:
Who is accustomed to using CE instead of AD in daily life?
Click to expand...
Most people I interact with don’t use either. But those who typically need to differentiate time periods on that scale these days tend to use CE more often, at least in my personal experience.
Welshrabbit said:
An agenda is bad when it seeks to minimize the awesome contributions Christianity has made to this world.

Wouldn’t you as an aspiring Catholic agree?
Click to expand...
I would agree if I believed that using CE did what you claimed. I don’t.
 
Last edited:
Weird. What term do you use?

In my personal experience, CE is only used by people who make it a point to bash Christianity (i.e. the militant atheist professor I had in college).

Similar to saying “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”
 
Welshrabbit said:
Weird. What term do you use?
Click to expand...
I usually don’t have a need to. If I do, I typically use the term used by the source I get the reference from. Copy and paste, provide citation where needed.
Welshrabbit said:
In my personal experience, CE is only used by people who make it a point to bash Christianity (i.e. the militant atheist professor I had in college).
Click to expand...
I suspect the possibility of confirmation bias. I have no doubt that some who do so are also militantly anti-Christian, but I don’t see the same level of correlation that you describe.
Welshrabbit said:
Similar to saying “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”
Click to expand...
For someone who serves any and all people in a country that has enshrined in its fundamental founding document the prohibition on establishing an official religion, being inclusive is just good business. It doesn’t necessarily mean Christian-bashing. On the other hand, getting bent out of shape because a store clerk (who might very well be a devout Jew for all anyone from outside can tell) wished you happy holidays seems a bit overly touchy to me. I personally try not to get angry at someone who gives me good wishes, even if it may not be in the form I would use myself.
 
whatistrue said:
I suspect the possibility of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.
whatistrue said:
For someone who serves any and all people in a country that has enshrined in its fundamental founding document the prohibition on establishing an official religion, being inclusive is just good business. It doesn’t necessarily mean Christian-bashing. On the other hand, getting bent out of shape because a store clerk (who might very well be a devout Jew for all anyone from outside can tell) wished you happy holidays seems a bit overly touchy to me. I personally try not to get angry at someone who gives me good wishes, even if it may not be in the form I would use myself.
Click to expand...
Super-duper for you. I don’t serve anyone so I guess I have the luxury of avoiding such dilemmas . I also don’t get angry at anyone who wishes me happy holidays. That’s confirmation bias on your part.

At any rate, I’m tired of this conversation. What was your point in replying to my post in the first place? Are you trying to make me a better person? Are you trying to correct my incorrect opinion?
 
Welshrabbit said:
I don’t serve anyone so I guess I have the luxury of avoiding such dilemmas
Click to expand...
I am not in a service industry either, or at least not a public facing one. But I do have empathy for those who are.
Welshrabbit said:
I also don’t get angry at anyone who wishes me happy holidays. That’s confirmation bias on your part.
Click to expand...
Perhaps an unwarranted assumption based on prior experience with people who express similar beliefs, not confirmation bias.
Welshrabbit said:
What was your point in replying to my post in the first place?
Click to expand...
To engage in a conversation. No agenda. Is that a problem?
 
I wasn’t the one who wrote that different claims, I copied them from the source offered me.
 
Understood, Mooshelf. To clarify: I wasn’t claiming you had an agenda but that whoever made the above arguments probably does.
 
Regarding this “CE” dissolution, I have heard the question on Catholic radio: “And just what, one might ask, makes this ‘Common era’ common?”

It appears that something remarkable might have occurred 2020+/- years ago. Ah, those wacky seculars!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top