Church Teaching on Abortion

[Incomplete]

Bolded above would indicate totally careless incompetence by the confessor.
I don’t believe such a statement would ever be made by the priest.

Yes, of course I believe the woman can confess and receive absolution. Please!

I didn’t mean to offend asking about receiving absolution. Somebody early in the thread posted that they didn’t think it was quite fair

I think a priest, being totally human, is going to base his response to the woman on how repentant she appears. It’s what the understanding between the two is when it’s over that counts. If she gets the understanding that she had no choice, therefore it wouldn’t be wrong for her to make that decision again, THAT would be a problem. If, when they’re finished, it’s clear that she knows she made the wrong choice, then there is no problem. We can’t take one line without being part of the conversation and declare incompetence.

 

[Rence]

A few times, when I’ve gone to confession, the priest asked me if I regretted my sins. I figure, he’d know the correct terminology to use. But thank you for the CCC review

 

[kimmielittle]

And hey, no one says you have to believe everything you read here, it’s just an online forum. This week and last, I read a few things that supposedly were Church teachings and I believe they have no merit at all, regardless of documentation – and I don’t have to.

There are people who contort Catholic Teaching to suit their debates.
I had one try to use Catholic Teaching in support of illegal Immigrants…it just isn’t so. They also tried to muddy the debate by not separating illegal immigrants from legal immigrants.

CAF has been a great tool for learning critical thinking and debate skills, for me. I’ve learned to source / resource my sources…If I didn’t…That person may well have sold me that the Church supports illegal Immigration.

 

[Rence]

I didn’t mean to offend asking about receiving absolution. Somebody early in the thread posted that they didn’t think it was quite fair

I think a priest, being totally human, is going to base his response to the woman on how repentant she appears. It’s what the understanding between the two is when it’s over that counts. If she gets the understanding that she had no choice, therefore it wouldn’t be wrong for her to make that decision again, THAT would be a problem. If, when they’re finished, it’s clear that she knows she made the wrong choice, then there is no problem. We can’t take one line without being part of the conversation and declare incompetence.

Perhaps he was using the incorrect confession terminology? Who knows? Maybe he was using the same words she used when she was explaining the situation for his counsel. I guess we’ll never know since we weren’t in the confession box with them

 

[catharina]

But this happened in verbal conversation, so it’s a fine line.

None of us heard the conversation, so none of us know the exact wording. And I doubt that a priest, being human, is able to completely monitor every word he says every time.

That’s why I find this story believable. If a woman at the time of abortion feels she has no choice, later repents, goes to confession, says, “at the time I felt I had no choice”, I can easily see a priest echoing back, “You had no choice” to show he understood what she was saying. I can also see a priest saying “You felt you had no choice” and the woman reporting back that he said she had no choice. That doesn’t mean she was saying he thought it was OK for her to do. She may well have just told the story in gratitude for his compassion. We really don’t know the exact words or the intent of the words and never will, but those words can be said in understanding rather than as a statement of agreement that she had no choice.

So back to my other question, I’m assuming you have no problem with her being absolved?

Edit: Nevermind that last question, I just saw your answer.

One more time, a priest questioning: You had no choice, are you saying that?
or a priest states/asks:
You felt you had no choice. Is that what you’re saying?

Fine and fine again.

Yet any agreement that a woman had no choice, in the priest’s view, is off-the-wall.
Everyone has a choice. As Catholics, the choice is NO abortion ever.
No priest, however insecure, would offer a false assurance that one “had no choice.”
That’s IF he is faithful, aware and accurate in his role.

 

[Rence]

There are people who contort Catholic Teaching to suit their debates.
I had one try to use Catholic Teaching in support of illegal Immigrants…it just isn’t so. They also tried to muddy the debate by not separating illegal immigrants from legal immigrants.

CAF has been a great tool for learning critical thinking and debate skills, for me. I’ve learned to source / resource my sources…If I didn’t…That person may well have sold me that the Church supports illegal Immigration.

Yes, some people do contort Catholic teaching to suit their debates, but they often really and truly believe what they’re saying. So though I take some of these “teachings” with a grain of salt, I try to consider the person who is trying to convey the information. Usually, not always, but usually, I do believe the person has the right intentions.

You just have to use your brains sometimes and the gift of reason (and consult your priest other times) to make sense of it all.

CAF is definitely a great source of information, with lots of good resources

 

[Incomplete]

One more time, a priest questioning: You had no choice, are you saying that?
or a priest states/asks:
You felt you had no choice. Is that what you’re saying?

Fine and fine again.

Yet any agreement that a woman had no choice, in the priest’s view, is off-the-wall.
Everyone has a choice. As Catholics, the choice is NO abortion ever.
No priest, however insecure, would offer a false assurance that one “had no choice.”
That’s IF he is faithful, aware and accurate in his role.

This is why I find the words he said believable and believe that the priest was competent. There are ways he could’ve said it without saying the abortion was OK. That’s the point I was trying to make.

It sounds like we might be on the same page.

 

[catharina]

There are people who contort Catholic Teaching to suit their debates.
I had one try to use Catholic Teaching in support of illegal Immigrants…it just isn’t so. They also tried to muddy the debate by not separating illegal immigrants from legal immigrants.

CAF has been a great tool for learning critical thinking and debate skills, for me. I’ve learned to source / resource my sources…If I didn’t…That person may well have sold me that the Church supports illegal Immigration.

Kimmie, I completely agree.
The fact that certain folks seem to have an ax to grind,
re abortion and homosexuality to the other extreme of demanding veils on the head —
the issues go from one extreme to another.

Usually, it becomes quickly obvious:
the snearing sarcastic responses,
the need to re-word rather than retract,
the air of superiority, it arises again and again.

It has to be a routine shock for those who read such posts.

Good news? Such posters rarely stick around for the long haul.
They repent and soften their hearts and open their minds
or they make a permanent exit out of here.

 

[catharina]

This is why I find the words he said believable and believe that the priest was competent. There are ways he could’ve said it without saying the abortion was OK. That’s the point I was trying to make.

It sounds like we might be on the same page.

Good.

 

[kimmielittle]

This is why I find the words he said believable and believe that the priest was competent. There are ways he could’ve said it without saying the abortion was OK. That’s the point I was trying to make.

It sounds like we might be on the same page.

Another oddity in the statement, as presented…The statement implies Both the Priest AND Bishop used the exact same terminology. Were the Priest and Bishop both in the confessional?

IMHO the statement is being used as some sort of vindicator, as it stands.

 

[catharina]

Another oddity in the statement, as presented…The statement implies Both the Priest AND Bishop used the exact same terminology. Were the Priest and Bishop both in the confessional?

IMHO the statement is being used as some sort of vindicator, as it stands.

The image of a priest and bishop telling a woman: “You had no choice” after she had an abortion is way beyond my imaginination. Perhaps she misunderstood their words. Perhaps she didn’t hear them correctly. I can’t imagine anyone using that justification.

 

[Incomplete]

Another oddity in the statement, as presented…The statement implies Both the Priest AND Bishop used the exact same terminology. Were the Priest and Bishop both in the confessional?

IMHO the statement is being used as some sort of vindicator, as it stands.

And that’s where we are reading things differently. Here’s the original statement:

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

.

First, she says there are women (plural), which tells me she doesn’t mean one woman went to both a priest and bishop. And there’s no reason to go to both.

Because of her wording, I read this as a generalization, not an exact word-for-word of what happened with more than one woman. That’s why I don’t see it as a vindicator, but as showing compassion. If I remember correctly, this all started with a poster questioning woman receiving absolution for abortions. I don’t think she ever meant every word to be taken literally, but as showing that woman do repent and priests/bishops do understand. Especially as the poster has also said this:

Maybe he was using the same words she used when she was explaining the situation for his counsel. I guess we’ll never know since we weren’t in the confession box with them

 

[kimmielittle]

The image of a priest and bishop telling a woman: “You had no choice” after she had an abortion is way beyond my imaginination. Perhaps she misunderstood their words. Perhaps she didn’t hear them correctly. I can’t imagine anyone using that justification.

I am fully willing to give the benefit of doubt…without verifiers, to the posters intentions. But unwilling to give it the statement ] credence, as it stands.

 

[catharina]

I am fully willing to give the benefit of doubt…without verifiers, to the posters intentions. But unwilling to give it the statement ] credence, as it stands.

Agree. Without a doubt!

 

[kimmielittle]

And that’s where we are reading things differently. Here’s the original statement:

.

First, she says there are women (plural), which tells me she doesn’t mean one woman went to both a priest and bishop. And there’s no reason to go to both.

Because of her wording, I read this as a generalization, not an exact word-for-word of what happened with more than one woman. That’s why I don’t see it as a vindicator, but as showing compassion. If I remember correctly, this all started with a poster questioning woman receiving absolution for abortions. I don’t think she ever meant every word to be taken literally, but as showing that woman do repent and priests/bishops do understand. Especially as the poster has also said this:

Good Points!!!

But I still have extreme problems without the qualifiers…i.e., Tubal Pregnancy …chemo…indirect abortion…as opposed to the direct abortion. This statement, without verifiers, is a blanket vindicator by Priests and Bishops for ALL abortions…It will NEVER happen this way.

 

[catharina]

Good Points!!!

But I still have extreme problems without the qualifiers…i.e., Tubal Pregnancy …chemo…indirect abortion…as opposed to the direct abortion. This statement, without verifiers, is a blanket vindicator by Priests and Bishops for ALL abortions…It will NEVER happen this way.

Again,
no suprise,
I agree.

 

[Incomplete]

Good Points!!!

But I still have extreme problems without the qualifiers…i.e., Tubal Pregnancy …chemo…indirect abortion…as opposed to the direct abortion. This statement, without verifiers, is a blanket vindicator by Priests and Bishops for ALL abortions…It will NEVER happen this way.

Thanks.

I can see it either way, because I don’t think any priest who would say it would necessarily mean it as the same as saying the abortion was OK. The statement could be as previously posted. Or, for example, the woman could be clarifying that she felt she had no choice (as opposed to desiring the abortion) and the priest could be indicating that he understood her statement. This is not the same as saying he thinks she did the right thing.

Anything said as a blanket vindicator is, of course, wrong. But it’s very possible that the words were used as a means of communicating understanding or clarification, not vindication.

yawn

I meant to leave awhile ago. It’s late in my time zone and I need a few hours sleep.

 

[elts1956]

Again, I don’t feel it’s my place to tell a priest how to shepherd his flock.

Of course, if I want to tell someone something, I’ll tell them myself but I would not say that her priest is wrong. But I would not tell a priest the way he counsels someone is wrong.

But it IS your job not to spread scandal. Wishy washy Catholics are provided with hundreds of excuses to circumvent Chruch teaching. Be sure you aren’t adding another one.

 

[elts1956]

Again, I don’t feel it’s my place to tell a priest how to shepherd his flock.

Of course, if I want to tell someone something, I’ll tell them myself but I would not say that her priest is wrong. But I would not tell a priest the way he counsels someone is wrong.

Thanks.

I can see it either way, because I don’t think any priest who would say it would necessarily mean it as the same as saying the abortion was OK. The statement could be as previously posted. Or, for example, the woman could be clarifying that she felt she had no choice (as opposed to desiring the abortion) and the priest could be indicating that he understood her statement. This is not the same as saying he thinks she did the right thing.

:
Anything said as a blanket vindicator is, of course, wrong. But it’s very possible that the words were used as a means of communicating understanding or clarification, not vindication.

yawn

I meant to leave awhile ago. It’s late in my time zone and I need a few hours sleep.

For the sake of the Faith, this is the way I believe the case to be. No vindication, but yes, empathy which is the priest’s job.

 

[Rence]

But it IS your job not to spread scandal. Wishy washy Catholics are provided with hundreds of excuses to circumvent Chruch teaching. Be sure you aren’t adding another one.

Ok