Abortion & Infallibility

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

You wrote:

I thought that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals?
But his infallibilty is shown to be dependent on the level of biological knowledge of the time. According to Catholic teaching the faith is not in any way dependent on scientific knowledge but it obviously is in this matter of abortion.
So the REAL question hones in on infallibility. How the Popes could allow the sin of abortion because of their scientific ignorance?
The Pope taught, erroneously and in opposition to the Church’s Canon law formulated by an Ecumenical Council, that abortion was permissible up until the 17th week of pregnancy. You see how error can creep in when the Church of Rome was too isolated from the rest of the Church.

Several considerations:

1. The infallibility of the Pope does not make him omniscient. This is one of the many false assumptions made by opponents of infallibility. Nor is infallibility the same as inspiration. He must base his decisions on extant knowledge, NOT esoteric divine knowledge to which only he is privy.
2. Only a fetus with a soul was – and in fact IS - considered a “life.”
3. The moral teaching to consider here is “a life in a womb can never be aborted.” How did the Catholic Church or any Popes contradict this teaching?
4. Moral doctrine, like theological doctrine, fall under the purview of invincible ignorance. Let me repeat what I wrote from the closed thread:

Isn’t it the case that before ensoulment, some in the Western Church assumed “abortion” was not abortion? Isn’t it the case that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS defined abortion as the murder of a living being in the womb? If something has no soul, and is not considered alive, can that really be called abortion?
So the Western Church truly would not be guilty of promoting abortion, even in the past, would she? Do you suppose that if these Western Christians realized that ensoulment actually occurred at the moment of conception, they would still allow abortion? THAT is the real question you must ask and answer if you want to prove your point.

1. Catholic teaching DOES NOT say that “the faith is not in any way dependent on scientific knowledge.” The Catholic teaching is that scientific knowledge cannot contradict faith. What part of this issue can be judged by this principle?
2. The ensoulment of an unborn child IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE. So your statement “in this matter of abortion … faith is…dependent on scientific knowledge” is flat out FALSE. Perhaps you are aware of some esoteric study, to which no one else is privy, that science has discovered when the soul enters an unborn child?
3. You need to prove that the papal statements you provided were intended to be ex cathedra or if they were mere opinions. Certainly, there were other pontiffs who were vehement against abortion at ANY stage. For you to prove your charge, you must show us evidence that these opinions ever made it into the Canons of the Catholic Church. Without such evidence, you have simply shown us opinions that may have been scratched out on a piece of paper and thrown away for all we know, but recovered by some fan of the pontiff and made its way down through the annals of history.
4. Even assuming these were infallible statements, for your claim against infallibility to work, you need to show us that the Catholic Church did NOT regard “abortion” in early pregnancy as a sin. But even from your own sources, it seems “abortion” before ensoulment and abortion after ensoulment were both sins.

Please respond to any or all of these points. I will take your silence as an admission of your error, or as an apology for slandering the Catholic Church by stating she ever supported abortion.

God bless,

Greg

 

[ahimsaman72]

GAssisi:

1. Only a fetus with a soul was – and in fact IS - considered a “life.”

I’m confused as to what age constitutes a fetus with a soul. I believed (perhaps erroneously) that at the moment of conception the fetus had a soul. Could you possibly clarify this? Thanks in advance.

Peace…

 

[GAssisi]

Yes, the unborn baby is “animated” at the moment of conception. But some ancient authorities believed that animation/ensoulment occurred 7 weeks after conception.

God bless,
Greg

 

[ahimsaman72]

GAssisi:

Yes, the unborn baby is “animated” at the moment of conception. But some ancient authorities believed that animation/ensoulment occurred 7 weeks after conception.

God bless,
Greg

Really? Wow, that opens up a can of worms for me. I just had conversations with some Catholics on another thread and their interpretation was that abortion was the killing of the embryo (I hope I got that right). Killing embryo=killing human=abortion. Is that not correct? I thank you for your response.

Peace…

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Ahimsaman,
Yes, they are correct - but that is ONLY because the embryo is considered as having a soul since animation is considered NOW to occur at the very moment of conception. So the two statements - “killing an unborn baby with a soul” and “killing an embryo” are synonymous.
I pray that clarifies matters.
God bless,
Greg

 

[ahimsaman72]

GAssisi:

Dear Ahimsaman,
Yes, they are correct - but that is ONLY because the embryo is considered as having a soul since animation is considered NOW to occur at the very moment of conception. So the two statements - “killing an unborn baby with a soul” and “killing an embryo” are synonymous.
I pray that clarifies matters.
God bless,
Greg

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

GAssisi:

Dear Ahimsaman,
Yes, they are correct - but that is ONLY because the embryo is considered as having a soul since animation is considered NOW to occur at the very moment of conception. So the two statements - “killing an unborn baby with a soul” and “killing an embryo” are synonymous.
I pray that clarifies matters.
God bless,
Greg

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

Peace…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

The Western Church assumed “abortion” was not abortion? Isn’t it the case that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS defined abortion as the murder of a living being in the womb? If something has no soul, and is not considered alive, can that really be called abortion?

There has been a curious decision made by the Anglican Church in Australia in 2004. An abortion is not sinful in the first few days after sexual intercourse because no human being has yet been formed.

This ties in with what you are saying above…

Also, what you are saying above would justify not just the Australian Anglicans but any woman to have an abortion without sin if she honestly believed that no living child had been formed until she felt him"quickening" in her womb.

Here is what Archbishop Peter Carnley, the Primate of Australia has written, in an addres to the House of Bishops in 2002. In some ways he is returning to the earlier teachings of the Popes on “ensoulment” which permitted abortion up until the time that occurred. Pope Benedict placed this at 17 weeks.

For one thing, what comes into existence at fertilization has the potentiality for becoming a human individual only if a third condition is present. This is its successful implantation in the lining of the womb. It quite simply does not have this potentiality if it is not implanted. Also, given recent advances in our understanding of the development of the embryo, we must begin to think of conception less as a moment and more in gradual and continuous terms as a process.

During the course of this process, which takes some days, the embryo may divide and give rise to identical twins. If we insist that the embryo is endowed with a soul from the moment of fertilization are we then, in the case of twinning, to say that one soul has become two souls?

Moreover, I understand from the literature that sometimes the two divided parts may reunite in a process termed mosaicism. In this case, instead of identical twins only a single child results. It would be logically necessary, on the view which is being discussed, to suppose that two souls have united to become a single soul.

This should alert us to exercise caution in relation to soul talk - and certainly to the question whether fertilization of an ovum can be identified as being synonymous with the conception of a human individual.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,
Good response. I can surmise you will not like my reply. As a matter of fact, a person who has an abortion yet is convicted that a foetus is not a living person with a soul is OBJECTIVELY not guilty of a mortal sin. It is only a person realizing that she has a living being inside her womb yet still has an abortion - perhaps out of fear or desire for peer acceptance or desire to put career ahead of life, etc. - who is culpable for mortal sin. Of course, this is what the pro-abortion advocates are trying to sell - that unless a baby is outside the womb, the baby is not “alive” (or has a soul).
This is why the pro-life advocates want to counter this with the correct information, so people will have an informed choice and be convicted that abortion in all instances is wrong.
BTW, I think you had a typo in the old thread. You said that abortion was allowed up to 17 weeks into the pregnancy. As far as I know, ensoulment was normally assumed to occur on the 49th day, or 7 weeks, not 17.
Lastly, I want to say that we all agree that by today’s standards, those papal opinions were wrong.
God bless,
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I think you had a typo in the old thread. You said that abortion was allowed up to 17 weeks into the pregnancy.

No typo. Pope Benedict allowed abortion up to 17 (seventeen) weeks. This was when he believed that ensoulment-animation occured.

As far as I know, ensoulment was normally assumed to occur on the 49th day

It varied. Saint Augustine says it is 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl. Good thing they did not have the means then to check on the sex of the foetus or they would have aborted many more girls.

Why, do you think, did the Western Church (Catholic) have a much more liberal approach to early term abortion than the Eastern Church (Orthodox)? The Orthodox have always taught that abortion is murder from Day One.

 

[abcdefg]

GAssisi:

1. Only a fetus with a soul was – and in fact IS - considered a “life.”

fetus gets life the moment conception occurs
fetus with life and in in fact HAS a soul.

I believe current teaching is one can abort a certainly dead fetus.

 

[Brendan]

Archbishop Peter Carnley:

During the course of this process, which takes some days, the embryo may divide and give rise to identical twins. If we insist that the embryo is endowed with a soul from the moment of fertilization are we then, in the case of twinning, to say that one soul has become two souls?

.

That’s always been a bogus argument agains ensoulment at conception.

It has been represented Biblically that God can take part of one person and ensoul a new individual to that part.

Eve was formed out of Adam’s rib. If we are to follow the Archbishops logic, we would have to accept that it is possible\probable that Adam was not ensouled until after the rib was removed.

The issue of Twinning presents no logical argument against ensoulment at conception.

 

[caroljm36]

Well I wouldn’t presume to keep up with you good folks, but leaving infallibility aside, am I to conclude from this that the Church has not always and monolithically considered all abortions to be murder in every case?

 

[Genesis315]

Wouldn’t an abortion before ensoulment (as they thought was possible back then) simply be a form of contraception and be condemned anyway? I think the only reason the Anglicans believe abortion is ok early is because they also believe contraception is ok. Does this make sense?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope Benedict allowed abortion up to 17 (seventeen) weeks. This was when he believed that ensoulment-animation occured.

Source?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for current Catholic doctrine, the Church has not determined precisely WHEN a human receives a *rational *soul. This has no bearing upon whether abortion is morally licit, however.

Here’s an analogy as to why…

If there is a matter of doubt as to whether a human being is inside a cardboard box, can one licitly destroy the contents of the box? Not according to Catholic moral theology. The box may potentially contain a human life. Once aware of this, then destroying the contents of the box is potentially murderous, and therefore, immoral.

Here’s what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the philosophical question of the precise moment of ensoulment and its relation to abortion:

From Fr. John Hardon’s *The Catholic Catechism *(1981):

… the Church has never defined the exact moment when the soul is created and infused into the body to form this unique human person… There has been a broad range of theories in Catholic circles about the precise time when God creates the soul… Men of the stature of St. Thomas Aquinas … were always careful to explain that they were merely speculating. Actually and in the practical order, no Christian could treat the fetus otherwise than as a human being. This is confirmed … in the Church’s unswerving prohibition of abortion at any stage of preganancy. (pg 106)

*Declaration on Procured Abortion *(1974) by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI:

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. **For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. *****It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

---

(SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 12-13: AAS 66 (1974)) 738)

Referencing the above 1974 instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger in 1987 affirms, with Pope John Paul II approval:

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul. Nevertheless… how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. (Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr. Ambrose,

Let me help you out a bit, so you are less confused…

You said:

Pope Benedict allowed abortion up to 17 (seventeen) weeks. This was when he believed that ensoulment-animation occured.

This is complete rubbish and either shows you lack scholastic rigor or scholastic integrity. I pray it is not the latter.

What you probably meant to say is that canon law did not always consider abortion before rational ensoulment as “murder.” But it was always a crime. Always. It was never permitted. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, otherwise, it is clear that you were speaking out of ignorance.

It is true that the Gratian Decretum of 1140 stated: “He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.” (Gratian, *Concordia discordantium canonum, *Decretum, Ad. c8, C. XXXII, q. 2). Yet, the Decretum does not indicate when the fetus is infused with the soul. Nor did the Decretum give any indication that one could licitly abort a child before they “thought” it was ensouled. This is no more morally licit than taking positive actions to intentially destroy human life near the end of their life, based upon the mere speculation that we “thought” the soul had departed already.

The conclusion, even during the 12th century was that while all abortion is gravely sinful, the abortion of a fetus prior to infusion with a rational soul should be considered quasi-murder. Canonical penalties may have varied, but abortion was always gravely sinful.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

itsjustdave1988:

Source?

**The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective **

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3361

It is of interest that the Eastern (Orthodox) Fathers did not subscribe to the pro-abortion Western (Catholic) teaching which was based on the belief that a foetus “quickened” and became alive roughly 17 weeks after conception… The Eastern Fathers knew of this Western argumentation but they dismissed it and insisted that a foetus was human and “quickened” from the first moment of conception.

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.

He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that “animation”, or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the [Catholic] church in 1140. As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” “the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her” was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin.

Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

The Orthodox Churches of the East never went through any period when abortion was considered less than a very grave sin, right from the moment of conception.

“A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction as to its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible among us.”

St. Basil the Great, Three Canonical Letters

This was then incorporated into the Canons of an Ecumenical Council, and additionally:

The 91st canon of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691 A.D.):

“Those who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons are subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers.”

 

[rjs1]

Dear Fr Ambrose,
Again I am amazed at your allegation that the Catholic Church has somehow had a less definite stand regarding abortion than the Orthodox Church.

Once again I must qupote from the Orthodox themselves regarding abortion. In a recent survey of church leaders in Australia regarding abortion, the Greek Orthodox Primate in Australia, while apparently critcising abortion, went on to say: “Our Church, as in all similar moral issues, does not respond with a blind answer of “yes” or “no”. The first thing it says is: “Stand well”. This means, “Be careful!” And when in this way one realises that one is dealing with a question of life or death - not only of physical death, but also spiritual - then one is in a position to weigh up in the fear of God both the opinion of responsible science and the advice of the spiritual confessor. I wish and pray that our faithful may see this tremendous moral subject with renewed responsiblity and act in each specific case according to the sacredness of the problem.”
Note the vagueness and apalling “cop outs” given to the Orthodox laity by such statements as "Our Church, as in all similar moral issues, does not respond with a blind answer of “yes” or “no”, and his instruction to “act in each specific case according to the sacredness of the problem”.
Contrast this with the statement of the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, who said: “The Catholic Church has consistently taught that the direct and voluntary killing of the unborn is gravely immoral. No reason, however serious or tragic, can ever justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.Science has now put beyond all doubt that life begins at fertilisation, thus reinforcing our duty to protect and respect human life at all stages of development.”
Note that there is NO vagueness whatsoever in this statement, nor any opt out clause!

In a recent conference conducted in Sydney to promote the fight against abortion there were many Catholic speakers, several from various Protestant churches, but NOT ONE person, clerical or lay, from the Orthodox Church. I have noted over the years with my involvement in the Right to Life cause, that the Orthodox are, with rare exceptions, conspicuous by their absence.

 

[MaggieOH]

Fr Ambrose:

There has been a curious decision made by the Anglican Church in Australia in 2004. An abortion is not sinful in the first few days after sexual intercourse because no human being has yet been formed.

This ties in with what you are saying above…

Also, what you are saying above would justify not just the Australian Anglicans but any woman to have an abortion without sin if she honestly believed that no living child had been formed until she felt him"quickening" in her womb.

Here is what Archbishop Peter Carnley, the Primate of Australia has written, in an addres to the House of Bishops in 2002. In some ways he is returning to the earlier teachings of the Popes on “ensoulment” which permitted abortion up until the time that occurred. Pope Benedict placed this at 17 weeks.
For one thing, what comes into existence at fertilization has the potentiality for becoming a human individual only if a third condition is present. This is its successful implantation in the lining of the womb. It quite simply does not have this potentiality if it is not implanted. Also, given recent advances in our understanding of the development of the embryo, we must begin to think of conception less as a moment and more in gradual and continuous terms as a process.

During the course of this process, which takes some days, the embryo may divide and give rise to identical twins. If we insist that the embryo is endowed with a soul from the moment of fertilization are we then, in the case of twinning, to say that one soul has become two souls?

Moreover, I understand from the literature that sometimes the two divided parts may reunite in a process termed mosaicism. In this case, instead of identical twins only a single child results. It would be logically necessary, on the view which is being discussed, to suppose that two souls have united to become a single soul.

This should alert us to exercise caution in relation to soul talk - and certainly to the question whether fertilization of an ovum can be identified as being synonymous with the conception of a human individual.

I am sure that there are many Anglicans who disagree with Peter Carnley on this and other matters

Maggie