Church Teaching on Abortion

[ryecroft]

By the way, thank you Rence for what you noted, although, I must say, it doesn’t make the Church’s teaching sound completely “infallible” - I guess they could say abortion is wrong in any circumstance but…for i nstance not to save the mother’s life if there is no chance of the fetus surviving. NOt trying to get people in an uproar, but it’s pretty hard for me to think about extinguishing a life which doesn’t have to be extinguished - mainly my own for “the magesterium…” or something that theologians may later dertermine wasn’t necessary.
Also, I must say, I find it as odd that many of the people that became Christians, specifically some Jewish people had a very different view of this - it was better (they have said) to save the mother than to allow both to die. To me it seems like common sense, but I’ll try to do what I mentioned in the previous post from now on. The Church also says to use a “well formed” concience. I consider mine fairly well formed - as did my spiritual director - it’s seems odd that I need to disregard my concience in order to follow “the magisterium” of the Catholic Church.
God Bless
Rye

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But it also says:
The present Declaration does not envisage all the questions which can arise in connection with abortion: it is for theologians to examine and discuss them. Only certain basic principles are here recalled which must be for the theologians themselves a guide and a rule, and confirm certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine for all Christians.

This is actually very interesting.

Does that mean that the first answer I got to my original question is wrong? That absolutely no abortion under any circumstances, even if it’s to save the life of the Mother and the baby was going to die, is wrong, is not, in fact, an infallible teaching of the Church?

From my perspective the only way the Church could back down on this one (not that I think they will, but hypothetically) would be to redefine the terms direct abortion and indirect abortion. If they don’t do that, I would think that even if the baby were to die anyway AND the Mother were to die the Church would not be allowed to condone an abortion. However, that particular quote singled out by Rence brings up a new issue.

So, what exactly is and isn’t infallible here?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But it also says:
The present Declaration does not envisage all the questions which can arise in connection with abortion: it is for theologians to examine and discuss them. Only **certain basic principles **are here recalled which must be for the theologians themselves a guide and a rule, and confirm certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine for all Christians.

This is what is meant by certain basic principles. Theologians are not to disgard this principle:

“Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”

 

[Rence]

Hiyas

Catholic theologians will not flounder …We are not to play God. All life has inalienable rights. Maybe,if people also assign a soul to the baby as the Church does ]…they will see, Catholic teaching on abortion will never change. Abortion not only kills the baby…but denies their soul existence.

Actually, the same document had this to say about ensoulment:

1. 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.

 

[Rence]

This is actually very interesting.

Does that mean that the first answer I got to my original question is wrong? That absolutely no abortion under any circumstances, even if it’s to save the life of the Mother and the baby was going to die, is wrong, is not, in fact, an infallible teaching of the Church?

From my perspective the only way the Church could back down on this one (not that I think they will, but hypothetically) would be to redefine the terms direct abortion and indirect abortion. If they don’t do that, I would think that even if the baby were to die anyway AND the Mother were to die the Church would not be allowed to condone an abortion. However, that particular quote singled out by Rence brings up a new issue.

So, what exactly is and isn’t infallible here?

No, the quote does not mean that the first answer you got to your original question was wrong. It simply means that the document can’t answer ALL questions for ALL circumstances and that theologians should use the document as a guide for discussion. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to wake up one day and abortions will be acceptable. Nor does it mean that “indirect” and “direct” will be given new definitions (they are self explanatory, and thus it wouldn’t be appropriate to change them). That means that theologians can discuss the individual situations as they arise in the context of the document. It could mean maybe that new guidelines may arise in the future. One can hope and pray that the Church might consider the life of the woman, especially when one can be saved in a situation where both will probably be lost.

 

[Soutane]

First of all, I agree with Mary Gail.

That said, here is the official Church teaching I promised:

The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another’s life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute- even if it is still in the embryonic stage- to choose in the child’s name, life or death. The child itself, when grown up, will never have the right to choose suicide; no more may his parents choose death for the child while it is not of an age to decide for itself. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

This is an infallible teaching of the Church.

Rence and all other Catholic abortion apologists MUST follow Church teaching on abortion,period.There is NO equivocatrion,there is no"yes,but…"Rence has excommunicated herself for publicly advocating abortion even in the most extreme case.She has done so here publicly on Catholic Answers and is preaching a different gospel than that of the Church to which she owes fealty and obrdience.

In another thread I stated publicly that I was having a mass said for Rence and her intentions as I believe her situation to be critical.I cannot believe that she has supporters on this forum and I further believe that she is proselytizing for abortion as a choice.I remind all here that the mass will be held July 18 at 8:30am at St John Bosco Parish in Port Colborne Ontario,about 20 miles from Buffalo NY.I ask that all who are concerned regarding her obstinate refusal to follow Church teaching on abortion especially in her influential position of a nurse to pray for her,Rosarys,Divine Mercy Chaplets etc.To all those who are inclined to listen to this woman as she does sopund SO reasonable,I urge caution.By the way I offered to send the mass card to her home parish under a pseudonym but was never contacted nor acknowledged.

 

[Soutane]

Here’s something that may prove to be useful to those who are troublede by pesky Church teachings especially on abortion.This will be a terrific aid in helping you conform the Church to YOUR teachings:thumbsup::thumbsup:WikiCatechism of the Catholic Church

…Scripture and Tradition the way you want it to be!

WikiCatechism

Theology your way

About WikiCatechism:

WikiCatechism is a collaboratively edited catechism to which you can contribute your own theological viewpoint. Wiki is a piece of server-based software that allows users to create and edit catechism pages using any web browser.

If you have ever been annoyed by clear consistent teaching that rudely clashes with your own magisterial understanding of the faith then WikiCatechism is the tool just for you. Do you have a favorite sin that comes under the category as “grave sin?” Simply edit it out and go on your way. No time wasted on dialoging, argument, or checking to see if your theology is even logically consistent. Just a couple of clicks, simple editing, and your on your way to a catechism easy to memorize since it is a mirror image of your own understanding.

If you are like Andrew Sullivan you can change “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” to “homosexual acts are the greatest expression of love and anybody who disagrees is intrinsically disordered.” If you are in favor of torture you can change 2298 to “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is in accord in respect for the person and for human dignity. Anybody who disagrees wants to give terrorists a comfy pillow.” Whether you are theologically liberal or conservative you just know there is something you want to change to your liking.

WikiCatechism is different than most Wiki applications. Our beta testing with hundreds of American Catholic users revealed a serious flaw with using a standard Wiki application. We found that paragraphs were changing every 4.5 seconds and some paragraphs were being deleted and new ones added at a very pace too hard to track. To fix this everybody gets their own WikiCatechism pages so your changes will stay put until your own dogmatic teachings change.

How does it work?

The following paragraph example below is a working example. Simply edit the text in the text area to fit your theological mood. You can change as little or as much as you want and simply select Magisterial Change and your personal catechism is instantly updated to reflect your understanding. Or you can selected Magisterial Delete and presto it’s gone.

You can even make a Ex Cathedra pronouncement first before updating or adding to your personal catechism by selecting “Make Ex Cathedra Pronouncement.”

Paragraph 2272
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
1Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

That’s all there is to it. When some annoying person asks you for a catechism reference simply give them a link to your WikiCatechism.

Coming soon is WikiApostolic, WikiScripture, and WikiChurchFathers. Why stop at the Catechism? Create a whole universe that firmly agrees with your theological world view now. You have a lot to learn from yourself so sign on and get going with WikiCatechism now!
splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/wikicatechism/

 

[Soutane]

There’s a lot of WikiCatechism on this thread.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No, the quote does not mean that the first answer you got to your original question was wrong. It simply means that the document can’t answer ALL questions for ALL circumstances and that theologians should use the document as a guide for discussion. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to wake up one day and abortions will be acceptable. Nor does it mean that “indirect” and “direct” will be given new definitions (they are self explanatory, and thus it wouldn’t be appropriate to change them). That means that theologians can discuss the individual situations as they arise in the context of the document. It could mean maybe that new guidelines may arise in the future. One can hope and pray that the Church might consider the life of the woman, especially when one can be saved in a situation where both will probably be lost.

Hmm, I don’t know about that. This answer is completely different to the one I originally received. I now wonder if that article is out of date, because I am 100% sure, both from seeing quotes on these forums and from Theology Class, that zygotes/fetuses are considered fully human, with souls, from the moment of conception. Unless I’m much mistaken, I’m pretty sure the Pope (not sure which one, but PROBABLY JPII) came out and stated infallibly that abortion was wrong in all circumstances. If somebody could find the quote, that would help.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Hi - I’ve got to agree with Rence. I am one of those who would NOT be here had the pregnancy I was carrying not been terminated. My blood loss was so severe because I had tried to keep the pregnancy going past 5 months which at the time was not viable. I have been told by more than one Priest that I did nothing wrong - neither the fetus or I would have lived. There are some on here who will say that the Priests were wrong - and honestly, I’m going with what my Priest told me. I really wish that child was here, living right now, but it just was not to be and my death would not have made any difference regarding that life.
I have no doubt I will hear that “maybe if you waited, God would have performed a miracle” or “the church says terminating a pregnancy for any reason is wrong - you should have just allowed God to take you both…” or some comment that is similar. My husband is glad I’m here as is my Priest and my family. I have been asked “how are you going to tell your other children how you killed their brother or sister?” - I will tell them exactly what happened when they are of a proper age. I want them to know that they have a little brother (actually more than one) up in Heaven who they can ask to pray for them. And the question I put down I have been asked - I did not “kill” the fetus -the doctor saved my life. And honestly, if in the same situation, I would expect my doctor and my husband to make the same decision. I am Catholic but I have yet to have a Priest tell me to my face that if a woman is in a similar situation to mine or is pregnant and neither she nor the fetus have a possibility of living if the pregnancy is continued that she is supposed to let herself be killed along with the fetus. And I will not take some Catholic’s beliefs or comments (on here) that I was wrong and allow them to make me feel guilty. I am sad I could not carry that fetus longer, but my family is glad that I’m still here. I’m glad the technology is here that allows a woman to live (in a similar situation) and I really do hope that doctors will find a way to save both mother and fetus/child when similar situations occur.
God Bless
Rye

Totally agree. And what if she’d been the mother of other children at home…let them lose their mother as well as a sibling? No, I don’t buy that God would want that.

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, the same document had this to say about ensoulment:

I wonder if you understood what was written here?

1. 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.**

This above, supports my Statement.

Here is Biblical support

**

Psalm 139:13-16

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.

Isaiah 44:2 This is what the Lord says — he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you…

Isaiah 44:24 This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: “I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself…”

Isaiah 46:3-4 Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs, I am He, I am He who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;**

All support my statement

Maybe,if people also assign a soul to the baby as the Church does ]…they will see, Catholic teaching on abortion will never change. Abortion not only kills the baby…but denies their soul existence.

 

[kimmielittle]

Totally agree. And what if she’d been the mother of other children at home…let them lose their mother as well as a sibling? No, I don’t buy that God would want that.

I think it’s VERY dangerous to try to think like God. By your logic stated above…There would be no instances…i.e., car crashes… that leave children orphaned.

 

[Rence]

I think I understand it Kimmie.

1. 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.

It basically says, “there is not a unaniumous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement”, and “for some it deats from the first instant; for others it could not at least preceide nidation”. So far so good.

It also says that though there is no consensus, the Church’s teaching remains independent because 1) “supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than human life, preparing for and calling for a soul”. Which means, even if there is a delay from conception to ensoulment, the human life is still eventually going to receive a soul. And 2) it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable…taking the life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul" which means that ensoulment might happen at any time, so that killling would result in either the killing of a body with a soul or body being prepared to receive a soul. Still so far so good.

In other words, they don’t know when ensoulment happens and it doesn’t matter because whether the fetal body has a soul or is getting ready to receive a soul, they still don’t approve of abortion. Yes, I understand it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Totally agree. And what if she’d been the mother of other children at home…let them lose their mother as well as a sibling? No, I don’t buy that God would want that.

I respect your views as a Lutheran, but that is not the original question I asked nor what I am trying to establish. I am asking what the CATHOLIC teaching on abortion is, and whether or not it’s infallible. Since I believe the Catholic Church is God’s own Church and is divinely guided through the power of the Holy Spirt, if she has spoken infallibly on the subject of abortion then yes, I DO believe that what the Church teaches is what God would want.

 

[Rence]

Totally agree. And what if she’d been the mother of other children at home…let them lose their mother as well as a sibling? No, I don’t buy that God would want that.

I for one am very sorry for Ryecroft’s loss but I’m very glad she’s here to talk about it. I’m glad she’s still around to get to know better

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I for one am very sorry for Ryecroft’s loss but I’m very glad she’s here to talk about it. I’m glad she’s still around to get to know better

A question for you, though: IF we managed to find an infallible teaching of the Church that did indeed declare that, in ryecroft’s situation, she should have died along with the child (this sounds harsh but the truth [lowercase, since it seems we have not established this as true yet] is the truth), would you support the infallible teaching of the Church and agree that ryecroft, as a Catholic, should have died, as horrible and tough a decision as that is? Or would you go against Church teaching and still think it would be better to abort the child in order to save the Mother’s life?

 

[kimmielittle]

I think I understand it Kimmie.

It basically says, “there is not a unaniumous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement”, and “for some it deats from the first instant; for others it could not at least preceide nidation”. So far so good.

These are scientists / philosophers that are in debate. Not Catholic Theologians.

Here the Church says it’s not within the realm of Scientists…and separates itself Church Teaching ] from science. Because Science is not a Philosophical venue.

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:

Within the Church Teaching…there is no debate

 

[Rence]

A question for you, though: IF we managed to find an infallible teaching of the Church that did indeed declare that, in ryecroft’s situation, she should have died along with the child (this sounds harsh but the truth [lowercase, since it seems we have not established this as true yet] is the truth), would you support the infallible teaching of the Church and agree that ryecroft, as a Catholic, should have died, as horrible and tough a decision as that is? Or would you go against Church teaching and still think it would be better to abort the child in order to save the Mother’s life?

I am not sure exactly what you’re asking me. Abortion is legal, and in even in places where it is illegal exceptions are made for cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. In addition, those who practice other religions also allow abortion in these instances. What do you mean “support the infallible teaching of the Church”? I support the infaillible teachings of the Church by following the teachings for myself. It’s not like Cathlics have the authority to hold people down and force them to adhere to Church teachings. And regardless of whether or not I “support” the infallible teachings of the Church, I would not agree that someone should die. That is not up to me. In addition, it’s not up to to me to accept or reject the death of another party, especially a death that can be prevented by modern medicine. I don’t think it’s “better” to abort the child and I don’t think it’s “better” to watch someone die when modern medicine can intervene. One can’t force Catholic teachings on people. Being Catholic and following Catholic laws and rules is a choice and personal commitment. I can only direct the choices for myself.

That said, at this time, the teachings of the Church regarding abortion and it’s blanket statements are infallible until otherwise stated by the Church. The Church didn’t provide a step by step or detailed Q&A for every senario in life but gave guidelines. You’re probably better off talking to a priest or one of your instructors.

 

[Rence]

Within the Church Teaching…there is no debate

Within the Church teaching, abortion was always forbidden, there’s no arguement or debate there When it comes to when ensoulment occurs, there was no concensus:

A brief timeline:

Circa 100 to 150 CE: The Didache (also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), was a document written for the guidance of Christians. It forbade all abortions.

Prior to 380 CE: Many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century:

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment”. He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 3 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216): He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.

Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.” The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.

Leo XIII (1878-1903): He Issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.

He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman’s life.

Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to “the fetus.” The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

References:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

Pope Pius XI, “Christian Marriage,” 1930-DEC-31 at: vatican.va/
John Cardinal O’Connor, “Abortion: Questions and Answers,” Priests for Life, at: priestsforlife.org/
St. Augustine, “On Exodus”, (21, 80)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I am not sure exactly what you’re asking me. Abortion is legal, and in even in places where it is illegal exceptions are made for cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. In addition, those who practice other religions also allow abortion in these instances. What do you mean “support the infallible teaching of the Church”? I support the infaillible teachings of the Church by following the teachings for myself. It’s not like Cathlics have the authority to hold people down and force them to adhere to Church teachings. And regardless of whether or not I “support” the infallible teachings of the Church, I would not agree that someone should die. That is not up to me. In addition, it’s not up to to me to accept or reject the death of another party, especially a death that can be prevented by modern medicine. I don’t think it’s “better” to abort the child and I don’t think it’s “better” to watch someone die when modern medicine can intervene. One can’t force Catholic teachings on people. Being Catholic and following Catholic laws and rules is a choice and personal commitment. I can only direct the choices for myself.

That said, at this time, the teachings of the Church regarding abortion and it’s blanket statements are infallible until otherwise stated by the Church. The Church didn’t provide a step by step or detailed Q&A for every senario in life but gave guidelines. You’re probably better off talking to a priest or one of your instructors.

I’ll clarify a little better:

What I’m asking is, if the Church declared that in a situation such as ryecroft’s, ryecroft, according to Church teaching, should technically have submitted to death along with her child, would you agree with that infallible teaching? Or would you disagree and still believe that the Mother should be saved even if the child is aborted?

For the record, everybody I’ve spoken to directly about the matter, meaning my Theology Teacher as well as another theology teacher who also happens to be a Priest, says that the Church directly teaches infallibly that abortion is 100% wrongin all circumstances, including the incredibly difficult circumstances mentioned by ryecroft.

Now, I’m not saying that I would have done any differently than ryecroft. I’m just saying that, in that situation, if I were to truly follow the teachings of the Church I SHOULD let myself die along with my child. But of course that situation is so difficult I’m not sure if I’d have the courage to do it.