Church Teaching on Abortion

[kimmielittle]

There is at least one serious difference: People in car accidents do not get the choice given them.

Soo abortion which is a premeditated attack on life…because it HAS a choice… is any less devastating to a family???

No, I don’t buy that God would want that.

Logic has to work both forward and backward

 

[Rence]

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

But we still don’t follow the OT to the letter, do we?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But we still don’t follow the OT to the letter, do we?

You’re referring to the whole thing with the “spirit of the law” rather than the “letter of the law”. We Catholics believe our infallible Magisterium will guide us in interpreting Scripture correctly. Protestants are not so lucky.

 

[Rence]

You’re referring to the whole thing with the “spirit of the law” rather than the “letter of the law”. We Catholics believe our infallible Magisterium will guide us in interpreting Scripture correctly. Protestants are not so lucky.

We still do not follow the OT to the letter. So it is unfair to look at a Catholic teaching and demand to know why another denomination doesn’t follow it when it’s right there in the OT, whe Catholics don’t follow all of the OT teachings as well. That was my point.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We still do not follow the OT to the letter. So it is unfair to look at a Catholic teaching and demand to know why another denomination doesn’t follow it when it’s right there in the OT, whe Catholics don’t follow all of the OT teachings as well. That was my point.

It IS fair to ask why we should believe their interpretation over the interpretation of a 2000 year old infallible Church founded by Christ himself.

 

[Rence]

It IS fair to ask why we should believe their interpretation over the interpretation of a 2000 year old infallible Church founded by Christ himself.

You don’t have to believe “their” interpretation. You’re Catholic. You have your own interpretation and study material to go with it, provided by your theology instructor

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You don’t have to believe “their” interpretation. You’re Catholic. You have your own interpretation and study material to go with it, provided by your theology instructor

Correct. But as a believer in an objective truth, I think it is important to condemn incorrect teachings so long as we do so charitably.

 

[kimmielittle]

But we still don’t follow the OT to the letter, do we?

If you read Romans 2;17-29

17 7 Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God 18 and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law, 19 and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness, 20 that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth-- 21 then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, “Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.” 8 25 Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? 27 Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. 28 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. 29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.

7 [17-29] Mere possession of laws is no evidence of virtue. By eliminating circumcision as an elitist moral sign, Paul clears away the last obstacle to his presentation of justification through faith without claims based on the receipt of circumcision and its attendant legal obligations.
usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans2.htm

 

[Rence]

Correct. But as a believer in an objective truth, I think it is important to condemn incorrect teachings so long as we do so charitably.

I was not raised to condemn other people’s choice of religion and their religion’s teachings. People have the right to choose the religion they follow. But if you feel you must, then that’s what you should do

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I was not raised to condemn other people’s choice of religion and their religion’s teachings. People have the right to choose the religion they follow. But if you feel you must, then that’s what you should do

The truth is the truth. If we don’t condemn false Truth, we COULD (not necessarily are, what with invincible ignorance and all that) be letting souls follow a false religion all the way to Hell. I don’t want that sin on my soul. There is a famous quote pertaining to this. I don’t remember who said it, but the quote is this:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

[Rence]

The truth is the truth. If we don’t condemn false Truth, we COULD (not necessarily are, what with invincible ignorance and all that) be letting souls follow a false religion all the way to Hell. I don’t want that sin on my soul. There is a famous quote pertaining to this. I don’t remember who said it, but the quote is this:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Ok

 

[Soutane]

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

As you are refusing to acknowledge my post and pretending I don’t exist in order to proselytize your own error filled OPINIONS about abortion,I don’t expect you to have the courage to answer this one,but when did the One Catholic Holy and Apostolic Church or its LOYAL and OBEDIENT adherants give one whit for the teachings of protestant eclaisial bodies that were created in heresy by MEN?Christ created the Catholic Church and no other and guaranteed its teachings would never be in error contrary to your own opinion.How can you carry out this charade of referring to yourself as a Catholic?.It is my opinion that youi are causing scandal and creating confusion in the minds of less well catechised Catholics and lurkers who come here to investigate and learn about the Truth of Catholicism.

 

[Soutane]

We still do not follow the OT to the letter. So it is unfair to look at a Catholic teaching and demand to know why another denomination doesn’t follow it when it’s right there in the OT, whe Catholics don’t follow all of the OT teachings as well. That was my point.

I find it galling and presumptuous that you have set yourself up as your own Magisterium as you obviously do not believe in its infallible teachings.Your logic is regrettably sophmoric and very ill-informed.As a self admitted Catholic you are choosing to fol;low the Pope that you see in your mirror.You are creating scandal by denying not only Magisterial teachings but their inherent infallibility,and you answered Kimmie’s post about Holy Scripture with a complete non-sequitor regarding the Old Testament and circumcision.Your argumentation is weak,fallacious and dangerous both to yourself and others.

 

[Soutane]

I was not raised to condemn other people’s choice of religion and their religion’s teachings. People have the right to choose the religion they follow. But if you feel you must, then that’s what you should do

Why don’t you try following the religion that your identifier says that you espouse.You sound more Buddhist than Catholic.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending moderator review.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Tackle the topic please, not each other.
Thank you.

 

[kimmielittle]

1. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.

What it’s saying:
Within this declaration, we do not approach the subject of the moment of the Spiritual Soul arrival

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.

What it says:

The authors… scientists ] are in disagreement.

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:

What it says:
We separate Church teaching from science…because Spiritual Soul…is beyond science…[scientists ]. Science isn’t Philosophy and can not measure a philosophical argument.

What it says:
Science does say life starts at conception…with ALL that is needed in nature If nurtured ] to continue on.It is human life.

(2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary)

What it says;
If ALL arrives at conception for human life…we can safely assume so does the spiritual Soul…And it can’t be proved otherwise by science.

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.

Self explanatory.

I hope this helps.

 

[kimmielittle]

1. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.

What it’s saying:
Within this declaration, we do not approach the subject of the moment of the Spiritual Soul arrival. For the reasons listed below.

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.

What it says:

The authors… scientists ] are in disagreement.

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:

What it says:
We separate Church teaching from science…because Spiritual Soul…is beyond science…[scientists ]. Science isn’t Philosophy and can not measure a philosophical argument.

(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,

What it says:
Science does say life starts at conception…with ALL that is needed in nature If nurtured ] to continue on.It is human life.

(2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary)

What it says;
If ALL arrives at conception for human life…we can safely assume so does the spiritual Soul…And it can’t be proved otherwise by science.

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.

Self explanatory.

I hope this helps.

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]

My understanding of the quote remains. I realize there will be different understandings of the same quote. Mine hasn’t changed though. I do appreciate your perspective

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 of these reasons 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. Therefore to err on the side of caution, abortion is forbidden because we wouldn’t want to inadvertently terminate 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. Therefore, to err on the side of caution, abortion is forbidden because we wouldn’t want to inadvertently terminate a soul.

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, it’s the same to the Church, which is why they still don’t approve of abortion. This is how I understand this quote.

 

[Rence]

I suppose this is just another thing I need to bring to my priest for clarification because this is how I understand these words as written