Abortion OK

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dismas2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dismas2004

Guest
If the prinicple of double effect applies to contraception (see Humanae Vitae, 15) then does it also apply to a women needing an abortion to save her life. If so, or not, where in church Documents can I find the answers. Also, noting that encyclicals, as Humanae Vitae, are not morally binding, just edifying - where in Binding church Docuemnts, i.e. VCII documents, Ecum. council documents, etc… can I find the answer. If you happen to know where I can find the same for contraception, please include that as well.
 
Simply put, they aren’t infallable. They are the pope’s personal advice tot he faithful.
 
40.png
Dismas2004:
Simply put, they aren’t infallable. They are the pope’s personal advice tot he faithful.
Click to expand...
An infallible pronouncement can be made by the pope alone, by an ecumenical council, or by the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium through the centuries. The teachings on contraception are constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium through the centuries. The teachings on contraception are NOT personal advice by the holy father.
 
I would suggest the answer to the question lies in the fact that the abortion is the killing of the baby and there is no justification for killing an innocent human, even if doing so would save the life of another human.

Using the pill to ward off a health problem can also act as a contraceptive but that would only be wrong if the contraceptive function of the pill was the function that was sought. And the pill wouldn’t kill anybody (as long as it wasn’t one of the pills that includes hormones to prevent the embryo implanting).

But there may be a more correct explanation - one that explains the principle of double effect properly. I’m sure someone will be along soon to provide it.
 
The only place I know of to find a pronouncement of any sort remotely like what you are talking about is in the US bishop conference documents, which are not of the weight you are talking about. Refer to: usccb.org/bishops/directives.htm

Ethical and Religious Directives
for Catholic Health Care Services,
Fourth Edition

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Please note that it does not promote direct abortion even if the mother is in danger. However a proceedure can be done to remedy her health. Perhaps this could mean removing a diseased fallopian tube (both the mom and the child will die if it is not removed). See directive number 47.
 
40.png
Dismas2004:
Simply put, they aren’t infallable. They are the pope’s personal advice tot he faithful.
Click to expand...
This thread is getting off topic, but I trust that it will return to close to the original intent in a round about way.

In response to my quote, I’d like to propose Ineffabilis Deus as an example of ex-cathedra teaching by the Pope through an Encyclical. Obviously, that’s what the church has taught through the centuries, how the Father’s understood Scripture to speak of Mary, and so on (yes, I’ve read it).

I know Scott Hahn is not the ultimate authority on these matters, but he said in a lesson on the Bible and the Church basically “don’t fall for the lies of those who say that the Pope’s teaching in Humanae Vitae are not infallible.”

Ok, thats my contribution.
 
The principle of double effect can never apply to *direct *abortion, because one of the conditions for this principle is that the act itself must either be morally good or morally indifferent. The act of directly and deliberately killing an innocent human being, which describes direct abortion, is not only morally evil, by gravely so.

As far as whether encyclicals are binding, this is what the Second Vatican Council explains about our attitude towards what the Bishops— especially the Pope— teach:

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking”

(Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium 25).
“Religious submission of mind and will” is as close as you can get to “binding”. And notice, the council points out that this submission applies even to non-ex cathedra acts. An encyclical certainly qualifies, at the very least, to be something we owe our submission.
 
Good discussions, althoug a few were off topic and questions not necesarily answered.

Question - why aren’t encyclicals binding. B/C they are the personal thoughts of the Pope. However, if the Pope throughan encyclical re-states soemthing that has been accepted as infalliable, (Ecum. Council, Ex Cathedra, Constant Teaching, etc…) then the teaching itself is binding, not the encyclical and all that it contains.

The quetion of direct abortion is not the issue, remeber - for the sake of saving the mother’s life, was the issue at hand. So this would not be considered a direct abortion. Techinically, this would be considered a life saving procedure with the “side effect” of killing another person. I know most people cringe at this thought, but I’m not going to sugar coat it and say “side effect of aborting a fetus”. Some might say, killing is killing - however, how do we explaint he church approvals of seperating joined twins when the progonsis is a 100% garuantee that one will not live. (True, this is very rare now with all the successes in these types of operations,) but the Theology behind it is still the same.
 
40.png
Dismas2004:
The quetion of direct abortion is not the issue, remeber - for the sake of saving the mother’s life, was the issue at hand. So this would not be considered a direct abortion. Techinically, this would be considered a life saving procedure with the “side effect” of killing another person.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by a direct abortion? If you directly intend to kill the child for the sake of the mother’s health, I would still consider that a direct abortion. However, if you intend to give the mother a standard theraputic treatment that will have the undesired side effect of the child dying, that is something different, hence my mention of removal of a fallopian tube. A doctor might remove the tube because it is diseased, even though a child is lodged within. This does not require a person to want the child dead. Such a person would implant the child from the tube to the uterus if it were medically possible. To me, the word “abortion” implies that someone would consider it to be unsuccessful if the child did not die or the pregnancy not terminated.

Just the removal of a healthy child from its home in the uterus when the child is still too young to live elsewhere does not sound like a theraputic or life saving procedure with the side effect of a dead child. Is this what you have in mind? Or do you have in mind a procedure that is directly good for the mom’s health, like cancer treatment or whatnot, that has an effect on the child, likely deadly?
 
If a mother’s life-saving operation is considered a success even if the baby survives, then that’s not a direct abortion.

On the other hand, if the mother’s life is saved as a result of the surgeon cutting her baby’s head off, for example, then her baby’s death is no mere unintended side effect.
 
We are bound to all teachings on Faith and Morals by the Pope, or by the bishops in union with the Pope. They are consider to be infallible.

Here’s some entries from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and an article sent to me awhile back from a Catholic Answers Apologist.

“As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching.”

Under the “Infallibility” section of the Catholic Encyclopedia it states:

"IV. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF INFALLIBILITY
  1. In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals;** but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed**. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council when it says that “the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)” (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845"
 
…continued

And here’s the article:

THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM
by John Young

Some people assure us: 'there are very few infallible teachings. In fact, the bolder spirits claim there are only two! Or again: ‘We may disagree with noninfallible teachings after prayerful reflection.’ Or take a third statement like: ‘God speaks to us in many ways: through conscience, Scripture, the Church, life experience, nature’-without any indication of where the Magisterium stands in the matter. People talk also of a parallel magisterium consisting of the theologians.
Because of the great confusion prevailing today concerning the doctrinal authority of the Church and how it is exercised, it is vital that Catholics clarify their thoughts on the subject. If we have a right understanding here, our total theological outlook is likely to be balanced; if we do not it will certainly be warped.
Scripture and history
We find the basis in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus told his Apostles: 'The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you (Jn. 14, 26). ‘When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth’ (Jn. 16,13).
The twelve Apostles were chosen by Jesus to shepherd his Church, with St. Peter as the supreme leader. ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ (Mt. 16, 1819).
St. Paul, knowing that the truth would remain in the Church, speaks of ‘the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe’ (1 Tim. 3, 15). Although individuals go astray, therefore, the Church will not. This ecclesial aspect is important, as indicated by St. Peter in his warning: ‘we must be most careful to remember that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual’ (2 Pet. 1. 20).
The Fathers of the Church
Christian writers of the fist and second centuries show a Church with a hierarchical structure, having power to teach and rule, a bishop being in charge of each community.
The fourth Pope, St. Clement, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth about A.D. 96, endeavoring to settle dissensions there. He states: 'Our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full knowledge of this, therefore. they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of. and they went on to add an instruction that if these would die, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office (Corinthians, no. 44).
St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Church in Smyrna about A.D. 107 exhorts them: ‘Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father’ (Smyrneans, no. 8).
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and the great opponent of Gnosticism in the second century, insists on the need to follow the Church’s bishops if we are to have the truth. ‘It is necessary to obey the presbyters in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father’ (Adv. Haereses, IV, 26, 2).
Irenaeus names all the Bishops of Rome down to his own time, and says: ‘In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us’ (111, 3, 3).
The Church speaks
 
The Church speaks
The constant understanding through the ages that the Pope and bishops are the authentic teachers of the Faith was emphasized by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (rune, 1973). ‘By divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the Successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ’s name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.’
Nothing here about a parallel magisterium composed of theologians! Mysterium Ecclesiae, in accordance with the whole of Tradition, sees bishops as those who teach authentically in Christ’s name.
The first Vatican Council, in 1870, declared that all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed’ (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 3).
One of the most important sections in the whole of the documents of Vatican II is no. 25 in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, where the teaching authority of the Church is outlined. Concerning the bishops, the document says: ‘Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s Successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teachings concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.’
Their infallible authority is exercised in the clearest way when they assemble in a General Council and, together with the Pope, define a matter of faith and morals. ‘Assembled in an Ecumenical Council they are, for the Universal Church, judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.’
Repeating Vatican I, the Pope is declared to be infallible when, as supreme teacher of the faithful, ‘he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.’
Having said that the faithful must adhere to the bishops’ teachings on faith and morals, the Council continues: ‘This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him.’
The substance of the above doctrine from Vatican II is repeated in the Code of Canon Law, Canons 749752.
 
…continued
Clarifying terms
Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.
By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)
The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.
The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.
What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.
Evaluating some views
We started by noting common attitudes to the Church’s teaching. Let us now evaluate those views, beginning with the claim that there are few infallible teachings.
Actually there is a very large number, as we might expect when we recall that the Church has existed for nearly 2000 years and that numerous disputes about doctrine have raged during that long and turbulent period. Infallible definitions have been given about our knowledge of God. about his nature, about the Blessed Trinity, about creation, angels, man, grace. the fall, redemption, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Church. the sacraments in general and each sacrament in particular, our Lady, heaven, hell, purgatory, the general resurrection, the final judgment. Quite a number of infallible pronouncements have been made in some of these areas; and this list is not complete.
I flipped through Ludwig Ott’s standard text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to see how many points he classifies as infallible, and my rough count was about 250!
Why, then, the preposterous notion that de fide pronouncements may be as few as two (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption)? I am sure the root cause of the error is the propaganda spread by dissident theologians against the Church’s authority. One ploy is to concentrate on ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, and to stress that there are few of these; leaving people with the impression that there are no infallible pronouncements apart from these.
Giving religious assent
What about the claim, noted at the beginning, that we may disagree with noninfallible teachings after prayerful reflection’?
 
…this should be the completion of the article. Sorry for the length. I couldn’t find a link.

We have seen that Vatican II insists on the acceptance of teachings given by the ordinary Magisterium, even though they are not infallible. We have seen too that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Mysterium Ecclesiae, said the faithful must accept the teaching of the Pope and bishops ‘with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.’
Canon Law states the position in these plain words: 'While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the The Church 's Magisterium College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by a definitive act (Canon 752).
Abiding presence of the Holy Spirit
‘Isn’t it a bit much,’ some people will object, ‘to be expected to believe what may not be true?’ The Pope and the College of Bishops however, in making their decisions, are not left to their own resources, but are specially aided by the Holy Spirit The result is that when a firm decision is promulgated on a matter concerning faith or morals (even though the conditions for an infallible definition are lacking), there is such an overwhelming presumption in favor of its truth that confident assent to it is justified, although this falls short of the absolutely unconditional assent due to an infallible pronouncement.
Another statement calling for comment, and mentioned at the beginning of this article. is that God speaks to us in many ways including conscience, the Church, life experience, nature. This kind of remark seems to put the Church on the same level as other ways of arriving at the truth. In fact she is unique, for God preserves her from error.
This practice of downgrading the teaching Church leads on to the notion of a parallel magisterium comprised of theologians. But once we realize that the Pope and bishops comprise the Church’s true Magisterium, for the Holy Spirit guides them in a way he does not guide anyone else, we see that theologians who classify themselves as part of a parallel magisterium are setting themselves up in opposition to the Holy Spirit.
The Magisterium is a wonderful gift from God. Faithfulness to it will preserve us from intellectual slavery to trendy theology, personal prejudices, secularism, and all the other forces that threaten to rob us of the truth.

John Young is a lay theologian from Australia.
From Catholic Position Papers, series A, no. 217. Published by the SEIDO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION (12-6 Funado-Cho, Ashiya, Japan), July, 1993 with general permission to reprint.
Digitized and formatted in HTML by the Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1995.
 
A couple of things- a PP mentioned that the pill would not cause a death unless it was “one of those pills that prevents implantation”- you should know that ALL of the “pills” have that as a 3rd line of “defense” against pregnancy. First, they are supposed to suppress ovulation, they are also supposed to thinken the cervical mucous to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, if both of those fail and conception occurs- the fertilized egg can make it’s way to a uterus which has been made “hostile” by the pill. I just wanted to make it clear that all BC pills can have that affect, though the lower doses have that effect more often.

Now- abortion to save the life of the mother- first- former Surgeon General C. Everett Coop has said that he has never seen a case where an abortion would be necessary to save a mother’s life, this is telling, IMO. There are cases where early delivery would be necessary (and a tubal pregnancy has already been covered in this thread) such as if the mother develops preeclempsia- or pregnancy induced hypertension— the way that this is “cured” is delivery of the baby- or HELLP syndrome, same thing— I know a woman who had HELLP syndrome and they ended up delivering her baby via c-section at only 24 weeks, the baby lived a very short time and then died. This was a tragedy, but it had to be done to save the mother’s life. Early delivery of a baby who may not survive when the mother’s life is in IMMEDIATE danger is permissable. Delivering part of the baby and then poking a hole in the skull to suction the brain out prior to delivery would NEVER be necessary to save a mother’s life. Poisoning the baby with saline and then ripping him/her out piece by piece would never be necessary to save a mother’s life either.

Is there a specific situation the OP is concerned with? AFAIK there are no medical conditions which cause IMMEDIATE life risk to the mother which would require that the baby be killed prior to delivery.

I make an important point about IMMEDIATE risk of the mother’s life b/c DR.s have a tendency to over do these things. I have been told to avoid pregnancy indefinitely due to a previous uterine rupture, if I were to become pregnant again my life would be in danger, but the danger is not great and many women have survived a rupture, still, my OB would encourage me to abort (which I would NEVER do) and say that my life would be “in danger” this danger is not immediate or even unavoidable ( I could simply be on hospital bedrest and have the baby delivered early before the uterus is stretched too far).

I do not have the Church documents to back this up, but am active in the pro-life cause, and have studied this issue at great length.

HTH!
~Patty
 
If it’s a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, the woman loses.
 
40.png
Flluffycat:
If it’s a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, the woman loses.
Click to expand...
Well put. Remember Blessed or Saint…(sorry, I have a hard time remembering these) Gemma Gelgani who was told she would either have to have an abortion or she would die, though her child MIGHT live. Well she was recently just canonized (?) because she chose to save her baby’s life. She was also in the medical field and new her chances. She had her baby and was doing well. However, after her delivery she died of complications due to the birth. Let’s keep her story in mind. Ovbiously she did something right to deserve the high place she has in the Church.
 
Most non-Catholics can not even consider the validity of self-sacrifice to give one’s child life precedent to theirs.

I have heard my mother repeatedly say that she can’t understand why a mother is to die for the sake of her baby – when she could have other children later.

We Catholics are aware of self-sacrifice and its merits – at least many of us are. I have tried to explain it, but the whole sola fide doesn’t seem to allow us to offer anything for affronts to Christ or aid in His salvific work. Once for all is all there is.

Next time a non-Catholic asks me what we are to do with the suffering in this world, I will just ask them to convert Catholicism. Maybe that will keep me from tryig to explain something they can’t grasp.

St. Gianna, pray for us to understand your great lesson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top