Church Teaching on Abortion

[Rence]

One more time, rence, from my post Post # 37.

"Rence, the flaw in your reasoning is this:

“In the case of an abortion, there’s no doubt in my mind some women are truly sorry for the abortion, especially if they wanted the pregnancy but it had to be terminated to save their own lives. The priest of course would grant absolution, if the person regretted the action, and if the person doesn’t intend to do it again.”

**There is no such allowance presented in Catholic teaching
and relying on a future “absolution” for one’s “regret” speaks to the sin of presumption. **

You must see that, yes?"

One more time, and hopefully it’ll be the last time, because the answer isn’t going to change No, there is no flaw in my reasoning. Sins are all committed with the knowledge that they are sins, and that they can be absolved. Every Catholic knows this and can’t deny it. If you confess that you had the abortion, knowing that it was wrong, because your life was in danger, and without it you would die, you still get absolution. Sinning with the knowledge that we can be absolved is a sin we all commit. Just like a thief who steals and then goes to confession, or a man who gets paid to do a job but doesn’t do the job and then goes to confession, or a person who lies and then goes to confession. Sins of presumption can also be absolved when confessed. Otherwise we wouldn’t need confession.

 

[catharina]

I admit women in danger of losing their lives feel as if they are compelled, and have no other choice, but to have an abortion. This is especially true if they want to live, and there are those who count on them to be around: like a husand, other children, parents, siblings, etc. If they **want **to live, there is no other choice if their life is in danger.

I, OTOH, would wonder about the sanity of a priest or bishop who does not have compassion, understanding and kindness towards any woman in this difficult situation. What merit is there in only showing kindness towards someone who is always following the rules of the Church? They really don’t need priests if they’re always following the rules. Priests are there for sinners.

Huh?

Priests are there, first and foremost, for the faithful.
They bring the Eucharist to us.
They witness our marriages.
They attend our deaths.
They baptize us into the Body of Christ.

They are ALSO there for sinners.

You missed my point.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to imagine any priest/bishop telling
a woman “well, poor you, dear, you had no choice.”

You don’t need the Eucharist, rence? Then you don’t need a priest.
When did someone’s “wants” trump God’s law? Never.

 

[Rence]

You don’t need the Eucharist, rence? .

Where did that come from? That’s not something I said on this thread or any other. Can we stick with what I said please, and not make something up as we go along?

Priests are given to forgive sins.
They do not forgive “non-sins.”
Sins are intentional.

That is not different from what I said. It’s the same thing.

 

[catharina]

One more time, and hopefully it’ll be the last time, because the answer isn’t going to change No, there is no flaw in my reasoning. Sins are all committed with the knowledge that they are sins, and that they can be absolved. Every Catholic knows this and can’t deny it. If you confess that you had the abortion, knowing that it was wrong, because your life was in danger, and without it you would die, you still get absolution. Sinning with the knowledge that we can be absolved is a sin we all commit. Just like a thief who steals and then goes to confession, or a man who gets paid to do a job but doesn’t do the job and then goes to confession, or a person who lies and then goes to confession. Sins of presumption can also be absolved when confessed. Otherwise we wouldn’t need confession.

You’re joking.
This is NOT the case.

To sin, counting on absolution, is a grievous sin.
It’s difficult to move from THAT grievous sin to a spirit of repentance.
Some theologians would say it can become nearly impossible
It speaks to living in a habit of sin. That can become insurmountable.

 

[catharina]

Where did that come from? That’s not something I said on this thread or any other. Can we stick with what I said please, and not make something up as we go along?

You forget saying this?
It was only a few posts ago.

“What merit is there in only showing kindness towards someone who is always following the rules of the Church? They really don’t need priests if they’re always following the rules. Priests are there for sinners.”

 

[Rence]

You forget saying this?
It was only a few posts ago.

"What merit is there in only showing kindness towards someone who is always following the rules of the Church? They really don’t need priests if they’re always following the rules. Priests are there for sinners."

No, I didn’t forget that this is what I said. Thank you for the quote, because that’s indeed what I said : ) No need to take it out of context because it is true

 

[micahmike]

You’re joking.
This is NOT the case.

Okay. What living catholics do you know who will make the claim that they have never sinned with the knowledge that they could be forgiven? Find one, just one who will state that they have never knowingly sinned with the knowledge, perhaps only in the back of their mind, that the sin was forgivable.
Priests exist for the faithful and for sinners. Sinners are not seperate from the faithful. I know no person among the faithful who is not a sinner. Please find me someone who will come forward and anounce that they are not a sinner.

 

[Rence]

Okay. What living catholics do you know who will make the claim that they have never sinned with the knowledge that they could be forgiven? Find one, just one who will state that they have never knowingly sinned with the knowledge, perhaps only in the back of their mind, that the sin was forgivable.

None who is telling the truth. ALL Catholics know they will be forgiven for any sin.

Priests exist for the faithful and for sinners.  Sinners are not seperate from the faithful.  I know no person among the faithful who is not a sinner.  Please find me someone who will come forward and anounce that they are not a sinner.

Thank you, that’s how I was taught in Catholic schools.

 

[catharina]

No, I didn’t forget that this is what I said. Thank you for the quote, because that’s indeed what I said : ) No need to take it out of context because it is true

Yet when I quoted it IN context, you decided to ignore it. (Post # 62)
So odd and so unusual. Can’t please rence, I guess, without giving 100% approval.

‘Out of context’ bothers you.
‘In context’ bothers you.

Odd.

 

[catharina]

Okay. What living catholics do you know who will make the claim that they have never sinned with the knowledge that they could be forgiven? Find one, just one who will state that they have never knowingly sinned with the knowledge, perhaps only in the back of their mind, that the sin was forgivable.

Priests exist for the faithful and for sinners.  Sinners are not seperate from the faithful.  I know no person among the faithful who is not a sinner.  Please find me someone who will come forward and anounce that they are not a sinner.

Oh my, it’s micah.
You might have quoted my words.

**"Priests are there, first and foremost, for the faithful.
They bring the Eucharist to us.
They witness our marriages.
They attend our deaths.
They baptize us into the Body of Christ.

They are ALSO there for sinners."**

You are saying nothing more than what I said.

 

[micahmike]

Oh my, it’s micah.
You might have quoted my words.

**"Priests are there, first and foremost, for the faithful.
They bring the Eucharist to us.
They witness our marriages.
They attend our deaths.
They baptize us into the Body of Christ.

They are ALSO there for sinners."**

You are saying nothing more than what I said.

You bolded and responded to the statement of “Sinning with the knowledge that we can be absolved is a sin we all commit.” with “You’re joking. This is NOT the case.”

It is possible that I’m misunderstanding you.

 

[catharina]

You bolded and responded to the statement of “Sinning with the knowledge that we can be absolved is a sin we all commit.” with “You’re joking. This is NOT the case.”

It is possible that I’m misunderstanding you.

Clearly.

You said:

“Priests exist for the faithful and for sinners.”

I’d already stated that:

**"Priests are there, first and foremost, for the faithful.
They bring the Eucharist to us.
They witness our marriages.
They attend our deaths.
They baptize us into the Body of Christ.

They are ALSO there for sinners."**

Problem.

The next issue? Separate post?

 

[elts1956]

Elts, I understand what you’re saying, and I appreciate it. I especially understand what you’re saying when the abortion clinics are jam packed to capacity with women who are having elective abortions. But the fact of the matter is: there ARE women who have been in danger of losing their lives, and who were pregnant, and who (at the advice of their doctor) had abortions, and who were told by their priest and bishop that they had no other choice, and they recieved absolution and are in good standing with the Church. It is not for us (you or me) to question the priest or bishop. That would make us equivalent to whose who are criticizing the Bishop in arizona, and a different brand of cafe catholic, wouldn’t it? That is beyond us. At that point, it is in God’s hands and no one else’s. It’s beyond us to question these indivual cases when priests and bishops have decided on them already. So to explain myself and my comments: It can be done simply for the fact that it has been done. Perhaps it shouldn’t be done, but the fact that is has been done means that it is being done.

I’m NOT saying that women should just go out and have abortions whenever they want and not worry about it because they’ll just go to confession. But there are dire circumstances that compell people to make choices that they would normally not make in everyday stress and circumstance, and when they fall to those temptations, according to the Catholic Church, they CAN be reconciled with the Church even if they deliberately made the wrong decision at the time. That’s part of the confession. To say that’s not true is saying that those who sin shouldn’t bother going to confession and being reconciled with the Church. If that’s the case, why bother going to confession for anything at all? Why bother reconciling with the Church at all for any sin? Is that what Jesus wants? Should we just send those women away instead of help them back into the Church?

We can’t change the world. Yes we can, one person at a time. We can only make a difference in our part of it in our day-to-day interactions. When I encounter a woman who has had an abortion, for any reason, I’ll work on moving forward, and bringing her back to the Church. We can’t change the past, we can only change our present and future. We all have to do what we think is best in our corner of the world. You, of course, will have to do what’s best in yours

But I truly feel, it is way out of line for people to make judgements on what happens during another person’s interactions in the confessional with a priest. Just IMOHO for what it’s worth.

You are right Rence in saying abortions have been done, but I wonder if the Priest or Bishop would say the mother had no choice, if they talked to her before the abortion. ie. a difficult pregnancy which could result in the death of one, or both the mother and child. Just curious. Of course if after the abortion the woman regretted her decision and confessed it, discussed it with her spiritual advisor, I am sure he would say what needed to be said to help her get through a difficult time. No choice? He wasn’t there. Just because a priest or bishop says that there was no choice doesn’t make it right, or less sinful. Yes again, it has been done, but that doesn’t make it according to Church teaching.

We do have to take into consideration the stress and sometimes absolutely loss of control over what procedures are used during a delivery. Many times decisions are made that are out of her hands, she is usually out of it. So to blame the mother and claim to know her culpability in such an instance, when one does not know the circumstances when her life is threatened, shouldn’t be done. Her medcal attendents are the ones to make the decisions. If they are ethical, they will try to save both mother and child. Sometimes they can’t. Not because they choose one life over the other, but because they couldn’t. We aren’t there so we don’t know do we.?

BUT OBJECTIVELY speaking and with Absolute Truth, one life cannot be chosen over the other, even in this instance. Both lives are sacred.

However, if the doctor tells her sometime during her pregnancy this pregnancy has a strong possiblity of ending her life, she MAY NOT choose abortion without shouldering the guilt and sin that come with it, if that is what she chooses to save her life. Doctors are not omnipotent and none of us live forever here on Earth.

 

[catharina]

You are right Rence in saying abortions have been done, but I wonder if the Priest or Bishop would say the mother had no choice, if they talked to her before the abortion. ie. a difficult pregnancy which could result in the death of one, or both the mother and child. Just curious. Of course if after the abortion the woman regretted her decision and confessed it, discussed it with her spiritual advisor, I am sure he would say what needed to be said to help her get through a difficult time. No choice? He wasn’t there. Just because a priest or bishop says that there was no choice doesn’t make it right, or less sinful. Yes again, it has been done, but that doesn’t make it according to Church teaching.

Yes.
Abortion can never be a “choice” for Catholics.

 

[Rence]

You are right Rence in saying abortions have been done, but I wonder if the Priest or Bishop would say the mother had no choice, if they talked to her before the abortion. ie. a difficult pregnancy which could result in the death of one, or both the mother and child. Just curious. Of course if after the abortion the woman regretted her decision and confessed it, discussed it with her spiritual advisor, I am sure he would say what needed to be said to help her get through a difficult time. No choice? He wasn’t there. Just because a priest or bishop says that there was no choice doesn’t make it right, or less sinful. Yes again, it has been done, but that doesn’t make it according to Church teaching.

I wouldn’t know whether or not someone has gone to a priest before the fact. No one that I’ve spoken to offered that information and I don’t probe because it’s none of my business. I suspect they talk to their priest after the fact, especially if it was an emergency.

We do have to take into consideration the stress and sometimes absolutely loss of control over what procedures are used during a delivery. Many times decisions are made that are out of her hands, she is usually out of it. So to blame the mother and claim to know her culpability in such an instance, when one does not know the circumstances when her life is threatened, shouldn’t be done. Her medcal attendents are the ones to make the decisions. If they are ethical, they will try to save both mother and child. Sometimes they can’t. Not because they choose one life over the other, but because they couldn’t. We aren’t there so we don’t know do we.?

I’m pretty sure that those who I spoke with, according to what they said, were alert, oriented and competent. Besides, if they are not able to consent, and their family did it on their behalf, then it’s not their sin at all - but those who made the decision. It wouldn’t be an issue for the mother at all if she wasn’t able to consent.

 

[x0stephanie]

But doesn’t that apply for every sin confessed in confession? I mean, we all sin kind of on the spur of the moment, due to losing one’s temper, or poor judgement in the heat of the moment. And certainly we can regret those actions that are deemed sinful, even more so if we didn’t intend to do them, but fell to weakness at that time.

But we also know that there are those (especially with all the threads started regarding specific sins in the moral theology subforum) who go to confession for the same exact sins over and over and over again.

You’re right. Why bother going to confession? It shouldn’t be allowed that you sin and can just be absolved. Especially for that teenager who gave into peer pressure and shop lifted. After all, she knew very well what she was doing. So why should she continue being called catholic if she can just go to confession for something she did deliberately? And what about all those guys who are having trouble not masturbating. I completely agree with you, why should they be allowed to just do the deed and just go to confession, followed by communion - over and over again? I’m seeing your point and it makes sense to me. What about that man who lied on a job application to get a job. Should he call himself catholic, even though he lied on his application, and can just go to confession and confess it and all is well? Or what about the man who lied to his boss about completing an assigned task that he didn’t do, had no intention of doing, but told his boss he did it. Why bother having confession at all? Maybe my dad was right: maybe it’s just between God and man? Should a priest forgive someone who sins intentionally? or just tell the person he’s no longer catholic?

I wonder if it would be okay then, to add when they’re in confession that they fell to the weakness of thinking that they could just go to confession after they sinned? Maybe not.
But I can see someone saying: I know it was a sin, but I was scared. Or I was broke. Or I felt people would be mad at me. Or, I was weak and did it knowing it was wrong. Should the priest abolve them and counsel them to sin no more? Or tell them, “well, you knew you were wrong, so I’m not going to absolve you. You are a poor excuse for a Catholic. I only absolve people who unintentially sinned. So just leave”.

I can understand that perspective pretty well. I mean, here we have in the example of this thread, a woman who is scared of dying, and in poor health, and was told by her physician that she needed an abortion in order to continue living. So in her fear, weakness and maybe even in the heat of the moment she worries over her children and family, she goes ahead and has one. I mean nothing is a better reminder of one’s mortality than the threat of death slapping one across the face. And then later regrets it, or even (correctly) thinks she made the wrong decision. Why should she be able to go to her priest and talk about it and get absolution? Even if she resolves to never do it again, she did do it. Even if her priest says to her that God understands human weakness and absolves her. She, (just like the shop lifter, the one who lied on the application, the person who follows a masterbate/confess pattern, the person who lied out of fear, the person who was dishonest about fixing a car, the person who didn’t actually do a job he was paid to do - and they weren’t even in life-or-death situations) made a deliberate decision, so why should she go to confession and reconcile with the Church and continue to call herself Catholic.

I do see your point. I think that’s probably why very few people go to confession anymore. I never have to wait to go to confession, no matter which Church I’ve gone to. One of my priests said that he typcially has 3-5 people coming to confession during the one hour alloted before communion on Saturday afternoons until two weeks before easter, when there might be up to 20. So I would think that many people agree with you.

As I was reading this post, I honestly thought the entire thing was sarcasm… But from reading your next few posts I realized that you were completely serious and it kind of scared me.

Every single one of us is a sinner, and I think we all deserve forgiveness but just the thought of a woman killing her baby even though she knows its murder, (maybe to avoid shaming her family or something) is just beyond belief. We need to remember that people do have the ability to change, just because you do one bad thing doesn’t mean you won’t learn from it and become a better person as a result of it.

 

[elts1956]

I wouldn’t know whether or not someone has gone to a priest before the fact. No one that I’ve spoken to offered that information and I don’t probe because it’s none of my business. I suspect they talk to their priest after the fact, especially if it was an emergency.

You missed my point. In the case of a difficult pregnancy, if the woman had been told by the doctor she had to terminate the prregnancy to save her life, if she talked to a member of the clergy, I am sure the priests, or Bishops, whatever clergy she talked to, if they were following the teachings of the Magisterium would NOT tell her before she had the baby that she would have no choice other than to have an abortion. If they would not have told her that before she had the baby, why would they in good conscience tell her that afterward. Perhaps they would have said that in a moment of human weakness, but the church doctrine does not give leeway for that. Again, I am not condemning the woman, but the action was one of Intrinsic evil which the Church teaches can never, never be done.

I’m pretty sure that those who I spoke with, according to what they said, were alert, oriented and competent. Besides, if they are not able to consent, and their family did it on their behalf, then it’s not their sin at all - but those who made the decision. It wouldn’t be an issue for the mother at all if she wasn’t able to consent.

 

[elts1956]

I wouldn’t know whether or not someone has gone to a priest before the fact. No one that I’ve spoken to offered that information and I don’t probe because it’s none of my business. I suspect they talk to their priest after the fact, especially if it was an emergency.

I’m pretty sure that those who I spoke with, according to what they said, were alert, oriented and competent. Besides, if they are not able to consent, and their family did it on their behalf, then it’s not their sin at all - but those who made the decision. It wouldn’t be an issue for the mother at all if she wasn’t able to consent.

As I was reading this post, I honestly thought the entire thing was sarcasm… But from reading your next few posts I realized that you were completely serious and it kind of scared me.

Every single one of us is a sinner, and I think we all deserve forgiveness but just the thought of a woman killing her baby even though she knows its murder, (maybe to avoid shaming her family or something) is just beyond belief. We need to remember that people do have the ability to change, just because you do one bad thing doesn’t mean you won’t learn from it and become a better person as a result of it.

The poster is saying the woman’s life was in danger and she was told by clergy she had no choice. If this is so, I would think the sister in Chicago who condoned an abortion for a woman whose life was in danger would not have been excommunicated. What do you think? I think this poster is very confused about Church doctrine.

 

[Rence]

The poster is saying the woman’s life was in danger and she was told by clergy she had no choice. If this is so, I would think the sister in Chicago who condoned an abortion for a woman whose life was in danger would not have been excommunicated. What do you think? I think this poster is very confused about Church doctrine.

First of all, we can’t compare a case in Chicago with a case that happened elsewhere with another person. All the cases are different. All these cases are different and have to be looked at as the unique individual cases that they are. I don’t know about the case in Chicago, but I’d agree: the Sister at St. Joseph’s was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to be performed on a woman whose life was in danger, and yes it was against the rules of the Church and she needed absolution. We don’t know about any of the other cases. Simple rule of thumb: if they got excommunicated, they did something for which Church warranted excommunication. Usually.

Second of all, I’m not confused about what the Church teaches about abortion. I know that the Church forbids direct abortion in all circumstances. I’m just telling you that women (even one in particular who is on this forum) have had an abortion due to her life being in danger and her bishop told her she had no choice, in other words, she had to have the abortion or she would die. She was not excommunicated and is in good standing with the Church. And we can go around in circles about it but the fact remains 1) the church forbids direct abortion in all cases (and I’m not a little confused about it, let alone very confused about it) and 2) there are catholics who have had abortions and are in good standing in the Church whether they were absolved afterwards, or whether they told they had no choice, or whether they received counsel from the priest or bishop beforehand, and 3) none of the three possibilites matters because direct abortion is still forbidden by the Church regardless. Though, thank you for making sure that I know the teachings, it’s very conscientious of you. It shows you care. But don’t worry, I know what the Church teaches about abortion. I just don’t always agree with or understand the reasons and rationales, particular direct vs indirect, which is a whole new other topic.

 

[x0stephanie]

The poster is saying the woman’s life was in danger and she was told by clergy she had no choice. If this is so, I would think the sister in Chicago who condoned an abortion for a woman whose life was in danger would not have been excommunicated. What do you think? I think this poster is very confused about Church doctrine.

If the woman didn’t consent to it and medical personnel went ahead and did it anyway then she can’t exactly be held accountable. I’m a nurse and I know that women get things done to them all the time against their wishes (things like unnecessary c-sections). If the dr feels that you are incompetent to make a decision they’ll just go ahead and decide for you. Those are usually emergency situations though, if you’re not already in the hospital, no one is forcing you to go there and get admitted.