Church Teaching on Abortion

[Rence]

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.

Within the Church Teaching…there is no debate

And even if there is no debate now (I don’t know, they might have figured it all out finally), that still points to the fact that this is a Church teaching, and not a universal law or understanding.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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:

The Church today claims that science supports the formation of a human person in full dignity at the moment of conception. “Full dignity” means that they of course have a soul. In the past the Saints and theologians did not have access to the resources that we have today.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

And even if there is no debate now (I don’t know, they might have figured it all out finally), that still points to the fact that this is a Church teaching, and not a universal law or understanding.

Church teaching IS a universal law. It is up to us to try and make it universally understood.

 

[kimmielittle]

Within the Church teaching, abortion was always forbidden, there’s no arguement or debate there

ABSOLUTELY

When it comes to when ensoulment occurs, there was no concensus:

Between Scientists there is no consensus …Not Catholic Theologians. That is what is being addressed here…AND why Church Teaching places the Soul at conception.

Please reread

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]

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?

I agree that it’s an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that direct abortion is forbidden in all cases, even in the case of a woman’s life being in danger.

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.

Yes, that’s what it says in the CCC as well.

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.

I don’t think I’d have the courage to do it either, but I can’t say for sure. Most people don’t, otherwise this wouldn’t be such a hot topic, right? This isn’t a normal abortion issue. 98% of abortions are done for convenience. However, If my mom got pregnant and needed an abortion to live longer, and that’s what she chose to do, it would be really hypocritical of me to say, “oh yeah mom, you should just die”. That wouldn’t happen. Deep down (or hell, even on the surface) I’d be really grateful that she chose life because I wouldn’t want her to die.

 

[Rence]

ABSOLUTELY
Between Scientists there is no consensus …Not Catholic Theologians. That is what is being addressed here…AND why Church Teaching places the Soul at conception.

Please reread

Kimmie, you can keep showing me the same paragraph that I quoted as much as you like, I still have the same understanding of it Sorry we don’t agree on this. But asking me to reread it five times isn’t going to change anything

 

[kimmielittle]

And even if there is no debate now (I don’t know, they might have figured it all out finally), that still points to the fact that this is a Church teaching, and not a universal law or understanding.

I defended this as a Universal Christian Teaching…with Bible quotes…

 

[Rence]

The Church today claims that science supports the formation of a human person in full dignity at the moment of conception. “Full dignity” means that they of course have a soul. In the past the Saints and theologians did not have access to the resources that we have today.

Well I’m glad they finally ironed it all out. But I’m curious, what resources do we have today prove when ensoulment happens? Can you ask your theology instructor when this became the official teaching Marc? Maybe your theology instructor can provide a resource that we can read.

 

[Rence]

I defended this as Christian Teaching…with Bible quotes

Sorry Kimmie, I don’t know of any other Christian besides a Catholic who believes in ensoulment from the moment of conception.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well I’m glad they finally ironed it all out. But I’m curious, what resources do we have today prove when ensoulment happens? Can you ask your theology instructor when this became the official teaching Marc? Maybe your theology instructor can provide a resource that we can read.

Summer vacation. So not for awhile. But I can give you this excellent post from my favorite Catholic blog, fallible blogma:

fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

Here’s another link about our topic:

fallibleblogma.com/index.php/if-youre-not-really-sure-when-human-life-begins/

In fact, I may pose this very question to Mr. Warner (Matthew Warner runs the blog). He’s an excellent Catholic apologist. He stopped me from becoming Presbyterian.

 

[stephe1987]

I believe every effort should be made to save both the mother AND the child. In some rare cases, this is not possible and the baby ends up dying (or they’d both end up dead).

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp

 

[Lutheranteach]

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.

There is at least one serious difference: People in car accidents do not get the choice given them. And, whether we like to admit it or not, we think like God every day of our lives

 

[Rence]

Summer vacation. So not for awhile. But I can give you this excellent post from my favorite Catholic blog, fallible blogma:

fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

well this first one doesn’t say anything about when a soul enters the embryo…, unless I missed it?

In fact, I may pose this very question to Mr. Warner (Matthew Warner runs the blog). He’s an excellent Catholic apologist. He stopped me from becoming Presbyterian.

That sounds very promising

 

[Rence]

I believe every effort should be made to save both the mother AND the child. In some rare cases, this is not possible and the baby ends up dying (or they’d both end up dead).

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp

And hopefully with a lot of prayers, they’ll learn to do a better job saving both

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There is at least one serious difference: People in car accidents do not get the choice given them. And, whether we like to admit it or not, we think like God every day of our lives

The point still stands.

Amd just because we DO try and presume how God thinks every day of our lives does not mean that we SHOULD presume how God thinks. It’s still wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sorry Kimmie, I don’t know of any other Christian besides a Catholic who believes in ensoulment from the moment of conception.

Then they would deny these passages of Our Bible?

**Psalm 139:13-16
** Quote:
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;
???

 

[kimmielittle]

The point still stands.

Amd just because we DO try and presume how God thinks every day of our lives does not mean that we SHOULD presume how God thinks. It’s still wrong.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here are some quotes from Matthew’s article:

“If science had proven that human life actually began at implantation or at nine weeks or whenever, then that’s precisely when we (Catholics and any other reasonable belief system) would believe that human life began. Simple. And, logically, it would be from that moment when this human being should be treated with the rights and dignities that come with being a human being”

Rights and dignities that come with being a human being are only applicable if the being has a soul, so though he doesn’t say that directly it logically follows.

He also denies that the soul enters a person at a later date here:

“At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins.”

Here he is saying that trying to find a date later than conception that a human gets their soul is illogical in light of the scientific evidence presented to us. Anyway, as his other article pointed out:

"When you ask them when human life begins…they say, “I don’t know for sure.” So what they are saying is that they are not sure if the life growing inside of a pregnant woman is a human being and has a right to live. Despite the fact that science and reason tell us that it is indeed a new, unique human life, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt – they don’t know.

So if you don’t know, then wouldn’t one always err on the side of caution when dealing with human life? If there is a chance that there is human life inside should you not do everything you can to protect it? Should you not wait until you are 100% sure about it before you kill this life? Or do you just kill it anyway – quick…before it can speak for itself?

You don’t know for sure?

So you allow this life to be destroyed anyway? Just blow it up – regardless of whether or not an innocent human life may be killed as a result? Or stand and do nothing while innocent human life could be getting destroyed?

You don’t know for sure!?

I don’t understand this thinking – or lack there of."

 

[Rence]

Then they would deny these passages of Our Bible?

You’re asking the wrong person Kimmie. I have no idea what the reasons and rationales are for their teachings. I don’t even understand (and am often confused by) the reasons and rationales given by the Catholic Church as it is. The only difference is that being Catholic, I choose to follow them, even though I don’t agree with all of them or understand all of them.

Keep in mind that we don’t follow all the teachings of the old testament either. For example, in the old testament, it is a law to circumcise your male children on the eight day. We Catholics don’t follow this teaching, yet there it is. Do we deny these passages that mandate circumcision of males on the 8th day?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You’re asking the wrong person Kimmie. I have no idea what the reasons and rationales are for their teachings. I don’t even understand (and am often confused by) the reasons and rationales given by the Catholic Church as it is. The only difference is that being Catholic, I choose to follow them, even though I don’t agree with all of them or understand all of them.

Keep in mind that we don’t follow all the teachings of the old testament either. For example, in the old testament, it is a law to circumcise your male children on the eight day. We Catholics don’t follow this teaching, yet there it is. Do we deny these passages that mandate circumcision of males on the 8th day?

Circumciscion was abolished at what I believe was the Council of Jerusalem in Acts of the Apostles.