Abortion & Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAssisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ahimsaman72:
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…
Let us not forget that these ancient authorities did not have on hand the scientific information that we now have.

Ahimsaman you are on the right track with what you believe about the moment of conception. We are as one on the subject :). Having seen the ultrasound of my babies in the womb at 12 weeks and less, and seeing them fully formed, I have a difficult time accepting all this stuff about being able to abort babies up until 20 weeks etc.

The ancients judged the quickening at around 17 weeks because that is usually around the time that the baby is felt to kick the mother’s guts out - (ouch, ouch, ouch… you get the picture I hope - and all night long - kick kick kick) - therefore that is how they conceptualized something that they did not properly understand.

Keep on thinking in the same way my friend

Maggie
 
40.png
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”.
You have omitted the overall tone of the Archbishop’s message which sharply condemns abortion and you have given only one paragraph where he is speaking of specific complicated situations, ones which the Catholic Church also admits may cause unavoidable abortion. Here is the complete statement.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/stylianos_abortion.htm

It is obvious in the section which you see as a “cop out” that the Archbishop is referring to extraordinary situations such as when the life of the mother is threatened and she requires medical procedures which will produce an abortion. He refers to 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.”

Examples when “the opinion of responsible science” come into effect are chemotherapy for cancer or a hysterectomy for an ulcerous uterus. The Roman Catholic Church also allows these procedures which will producwe abortion under the principle of ‘double effect.’
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.
The Cardinal is playing dumb about the principle of ‘double effect’ as in the instances I have given above. In these cases the Catholic Church allows abortion. So the Cardinal is being misleading when he says: “No reason, however serious or tragic, can every justify…etc.” What he is saying is contrary to Catholic teaching which does allow some serious reasons for abortion.
Note that there is NO vagueness whatsoever in this statement, nor any opt out clause!
It is also not a true expression of the teaching of the Catholic Church as I have shown. Maybe you could give us the full text of what he said. As we have seen with the Greek Archbishop’s statement, abbreviating a statement can produce a distorted picture.
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.
I have to see the cardiologist at the hospital on a monthly basis. After our little chat I join the three or four Catholics who are on watch outside the entrance to the abortion clinic. I am there in my cassock and cross with them, for about half an hour, mainly praying or just talking, but they are better equipped than I am to speak with the young women. Do you know that these good Catholic people always complain that they never get any support from their Church. The Cardinal has not spent a half hour with them. The clergy have never participated with them (apart from one elderly priest who celebrates the Indult Mass.) They feel that their Church finds them an embarrassment.
 
40.png
rjs1:
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.
Here is a statement from Metropolitan Joseph. He was one of the Greek bishops in Melbourne until he was transferred to New Zealand two years ago.

Today’s Holocaust: Abortion The Indescribable Calamity!
By: Metropolitan Joseph
imnz.org.nz/MetropolitanJoseph.php

Here is a small copy of an anti-abortion icon, painted in Australia and found in Greek churches and homes. It is wrong to think that because the Orthodox are not present at ecumenical gatherings that they are not fighting against abortion.

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/Abortion Icon.jpg
 
40.png
rjs1:
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.
Metropolitan Herman Leads Hundreds of Orthodox Christians in Annual March for Life

On Monday, January 24, 2005, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, once again led Orthodox Christians in the annual March for Life in Washington, DC.

Full report at
oca.org/pages/news/news.asp?ID=734

http://www.midwestdiocese.org/dmw/1de5ee40.gif

http://www.acrod.org/pgimages/march06.jpg
 
40.png
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.
Well, given the strict stance of today I can well understand your amazement. But the teaching has changed.

Let me paste in something I was discussing in another thread. You will find it odd and even a liitle unbelievable.

I like to take an interest in the Lives of the old Irish Saints and one of the very curious things one encounters is their strange attitude to abortion. Four of the Saints have Lives in which they are responsible for some sort of abortions: Saint Brigid, Saint Kieran of Saigir, Saint Aed of Killarien, and Saint Kenneth of Aghaboe.

In the case of Saint Kieran of Saigir, a local king named Dima abducted Bruinnech, a vowed virgin, from Kieran’s monastery.

“Sanctus quoque Keranus, tanti facinoris immanitatem detestans ac remedium apponere cupiens, ad domum sacrilegi, quesiturus ab eo puellam, accessit. . . . Reverente vero vir Dei cum puella ad monasterium, confessa est puella se conceptum habere in utero. Tunc vir Dei, zelo iustitie ductus, viperium semen animari nolens, impresso venri eius signo crucis, fecit illud exinaniri.”

Translation:
“St. Kieran, despising the enormity of such a crime and wishing to apply a cure, went to the house of sacrilege to seek the girl from there. . . . When the man of God returned to the monastery with the girl, she confessed that she was pregnant. Then the man of God, led by the zeal of justice, not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken, pressed down on her womb with the sign of the cross and forced her womb empty.”

**Notice a very interesting detail ** because it bears out what I posted earlier about the early Western (Catholic) theory of the distinction between a quickened (animated) and unquickened (not yet animated and therefore abortable) foetus – **Not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken -viperium semen animari nolens - **

Saint Kieran did not believe he was causing the abortion of a live foetus. It had not yet “quickened” in his eyes and so it was not a sin for the Saint to bring about an abortion.

Bruinnech then resumes her previous status in the community until Dima returns to the monastery to abduct her again. The very sight of the king causes her to die, and in response Dima
threatens Kieran with exile for killing his “wife.” Kieran’s holy power then causes two of Dima’s sons to die, which thus removes Dima’s threat to Bruinnech and Kieran’s community. Kieran then restores the sons and Bruinnech back to life, and neither she nor Dima is mentioned again.

The two women who received such abortion services from Saint Aed of Killarien and Saint Kenneth of Aghaboe are not named, nor are the exact circumstances leading to the pregnancy detailed; they appear in the vitae exclusively as the occasion for
the saints to perform such a “miracle” upon them.

Saint Aed noticed that the womb of one of the consecrated virgins serving him

“grew quickly without food, as if it might flee from that place. Then the virgin confessed before all that she had sinned secretly and she did penance. St. Aed blessed her womb, and at once the baby in her womb disappeared as if it did not exist.”

The Latin text for the above:
“…cito surrexit ille sine cibo, ut ab isto fugeret. Tunc illa coram omnibus confessa est quod occulte peccasset et penitentiam egit. Sanctus autem Aidus benedixit uterum eius, et statim infans in utero eius evanuit quasi non esset.”

The virgin in Saint Kenneth’s vita had “fornicated secretly,” became pregnant, and asked Kenneth to bless her womb. When he did so, “at once the baby in her womb vanished without a trace.”

“…occulte fornicavit . statim infans in utero eius non apparens evanuit.”

There is not a hint in the hagiographies that the monk scribes found anything reprehensible in these saintly abortions. Indeed they are used as evidence of the miraculous powers of the Saints.
 
Fr. Ambrose,

You said:
Pope Benedict allowed abortion up to 17 (seventeen) weeks. This was when he believed that ensoulment-animation occured
I asked for a source, and you provided nothing regarding Pope Benedict, nor anything that shows the Catholic Church *allowed *abortion. Perhaps you can point out specifically the verifiable source for your claim about Pope Benedict above. If you cannot, a man of integrity would simply state that he made a mistake,no?

Or is it that you are uncritically regurgitating Anglican opinion? I’m still awaiting the proof. Please prove that Pope Benedict or any other pope allowed abortion. Otherwise, you only prove your deceitful disposition.
 
Fr. Ambrose,
It is also not a true expression of the teaching of the Catholic Church as I have shown.
Errrrr…no. You haven’t shown a thing. You merely posted an excerpt from an article of the *Homiletic & Pastoral Review by Dr. Donald Demarco, *which I read years ago (both part I and part II). These articles DO NOT in any stretch of the imagination assert that Pope Benedict or any pope EVER permitted abortion. You simply have thrusted out a lie and hoped it would be accepted uncritically. According to the article you cited, Catholicism has taught that abortion has always been and will always be a grave sin despite any theories of ensoulment.
 
Let’s see…

Secularlists decide to:

Use science to undermine Church teaching when it is convenient to do so (evolution, miracles can’t happen etc.

When it is not convenient to do so (abortion), use old “teachings” by various people.

I have a better idea for the secularlists:

Trust Church teaching as can be read in today’s Vatican II documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture, and Papal Magisterium documents.

If you do this, you won’t be contradicting yourself so much and you will know the truth.
 
I wonder if the legendary accounts of St. George slaying dragons ought to be sufficient to prove the Catholic Church’s teaching with regard to the existence of dragons. :rolleyes:
 
Fr. Ambrose,
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.
The Cardinal is playing dumb about the principle of ‘double effect’ as in the instances I have given above. In these cases the Catholic Church allows abortion. So the Cardinal is being misleading when he says: “No reason, however serious or tragic, can every justify…etc.” What he is saying is contrary to Catholic teaching which does allow some serious reasons for abortion.

No, I think we know better who is “playing dumb” with respect to Catholic theology.

The Cardinal is correct in that no direct abortion, the direct and intentionally killing of a human embryo or fetus, can be either a means or an end, no matter the serious reasons.

Your confusion about the principle of double effect can be cleared up by understanding that one of the conditions of this ethical principle is that the bad effect can never be intended. So, any direct and intentional killing of a human embryo or fetus is ALWAYS ILLICIT, either as a means or an end. The Cardinal is not “playing dumb” but you seem rather obtuse when it comes to your undertsanding of Catholic moral theology.

CCC 2271 “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

  1. *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
    *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
    *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
    *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).
 
Dear All,

I am not really sure that I should be participating here, in what I see as a section of the Forum where Catholics discuss Moral Theology.

I try to confine myself to the Non-Catholic Religions section.

I am here because GAssisi took something which I wrote in that section and used it to start this thread (see message #1) So I have wandered in here only because GAssisi made my posting the basis of this thread.

However, I am not comfortable being here. I feel like an intruder… so it is back to the Non-Catholic Religions section… although I will still be looking in on this thread and reading it with interest.

Forgive my intrusion.

God bless all,
Fr Ambrose

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness. ~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top