Church Teaching on Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nidation…refers to the implantation of the egg in the wall of the womb or uterus ,** a process which occurs a few days after fertilization.

This is the only disagreement between scientists…and Spiritual Soul arrival…a few days
**
 
ryecroft said:
Catharina, I do generally just have you on ignore, but someone has sent me your response-since they feel I should respond, I’ll go ahead and respond.
I’m so glad you feel that it would have been better had both of us died- also, so glad you feel that you’re in a better place to judge me than my priests and even one bishop. It’s so much easier to say what you’d do while wearing the miter than to actually wear it.

It was a sad situation, but I have NO guilt over it.

I’m guessing that, as you implied, you were absolved of the sin of abortion?
If absolved, you SHOULD have NO guilt.

The fetus was a bit over 5 months (not viable at the time) - one of the other responders asked the condition I had- I do have kidney disease and something unknown after much testing that causes mee to bleed for up to 8 months when not on birth control pills for which I have to get transfusions- obviously I could not be on (bitrth control) at this point (the pregnancy occured while using billings NFP) - even if the baby had been delivered prematurely it was too early at the time for it to be saved and I deffinately would not have lived (had it been delivered pre maturely - my doctor said I was hitting uncounciousness and there was no other choice to be made - had I been concious I would have agreed-this was something we had discussed if no other choice there was no point of two deaths).
I will NOT apologize for being happy to be alive - again sad situation and I really won’t accept anyone telling me what I “should” have done or they “would have” done until they can tell me (honestly) that they have been in a situation where they were about to loose their life not to save a baby but for some “rule” or principle (and apparently this is not such a deffinate rule seeing as how I’ve had a Bishop and at least tw0 Priests tell me what occured was necessary).
Again, raeders may not feel it was necessary, but can anyone out there tell me what good would have occured from not only loosing my baby but from also loosing my life?
God Bless
Rye
Click to expand...
O Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to thee!

**Do you believe she was only sinless at the moment of birth,
not (as the Church teaches) at the moment of CONCEPTION?
Would you have been willing to abort her so YOU could live? **

Your “reasoning?”
I can’t get there from here.
 
Post 218 is hyperbolic in tone, off-topic in content, and illogical in being a non-sequitur.

Ryecroft said nothing about “what she would be willing to do if she were carrying the mother of God.” You make ryecroft sound as if she was sitting around deliberating about whom she could eliminate, like some evil mastermind which could be the subject of fiction. She wanted to eliminate nothing and no one. What happens in an emergency room is not a case of remote, careful choice, planning, and calculation. Rather, lives, plural, are suddenly, surprisingly in the balance in the flicker of an eye – lives which all medical professionals and any patient – most especially a pregnant patient aching for the healthy completion of her pregnancy culminating in a live birth, want desperately to preserve.

It’s philosophically convenient for others to believe that such decisions are made casually and coolly. They are not. Even the medical professionals themselves often agonize over the decisions, during and after – no matter what the decision is – if the outcome does not result in the saving of all lives involved. Some of you have real caricatures in mind, apparently, when you draw some of your conclusions.

As to assuming that she committed a sin, that is not your place to assess, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch. You may make a statement about an act or behavior in general, but never the culpability of a particular person. That is a matter for that person, his or her priestly advisors & confessors, and God. Anything else is an invasion of her privacy and her dignity.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Post 218 is hyperbolic in tone, off-topic in content, and illogical in being a non-sequitur.

Ryecroft said nothing about “what she would be willing to do if she were carrying the mother of God.” You make ryecroft sound as if she was sitting around deliberating about whom she could eliminate, like some evil mastermind which could be the subject of fiction. She wanted to eliminate nothing and no one. What happens in an emergency room is not a case of remote, careful choice, planning, and calculation. Rather, lives, plural, are suddenly, surprisingly in the balance in the flicker of an eye – lives which all medical professionals and any patient – most especially a pregnant patient aching for the healthy completion of her pregnancy culminating in a live birth, want desperately to preserve.

It’s philosophically convenient for others to believe that such decisions are made casually and coolly. They are not. Even the medical professionals themselves often agonize over the decisions, during and after – no matter what the decision is – if the outcome does not result in the saving of all lives involved. Some of you have real caricatures in mind, apparently, when you draw some of you conclusions.

As to assuming that she committed a sin, that is not your place to assess, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch. You may make a statement about an act or behavior in general, but never the culpability of a particular person. That is a matter for that person, his or her priestly advisors & confessors, and God. Anything else is an invasion of her privacy and her dignity.
Click to expand...
Well said.

In ryecroft’s case, as you said, it was a horribly horribly tough decision.

That being said, I do wonder if it was in any way possible to deliver the baby and save the Mother. Even if we know the baby would die in the course of the delivery or shortly after, at least we are preserving the chance, however slim, that somebody on ahnd could administer baptism, and we are not committing murder, always a plus.

That said, as I stated several times, ryecroft was put in an almost unfathomably difficult situation and it is certainly not my place to judge.
 
It’s never an easy decision for anyone who wants to deliver a viable and healthy baby and welcome that baby into their family. Being pregnant and having that pregnancy produce physiological stress on the body which leads to further illness and threat to a woman’s life is not good place to be. I think we take for granted, that since these are rare instances, how lucky we are to not be in those positions, or to have loved-ones in these positions. It’s hard enough when we, or those we love, fall ill to such things as cancers, traumas, heart and lung diseases, and other system diseases. But it’s even worse when something can be done to save that person, but there is an ethical and “moral” dilemma to take such action to help the person live instead of die.

The Church allows “indirect” abortion in the case of a woman’s life being in danger, such as with tubal pregnancies, cancer, traumas, etc. But also calls for the health care providers to do all that they can to save both, and if they can’t save both, the priority is with the fetus. I pray that one of two things happens: 1) the doctors will work harder to save both so that women are never in these situations and/or 2) the Church considers this subject again and allows for the preservation of the woman when her life is in danger, especially in those lose-lose situations where both won’t live without intervention, and in the cases where the fetus will not live no matter what interventions are done.

In the meantime, I have yet to meet a priest who would treat an ill woman, forced by circumstances to have an abortion to avoid her own death, with anything but kindness, charity, forgiveness and followed by gentle guidance back into good standing with the Church.

And I have yet to meet a person who was grateful to watch a woman die in these situations. It’s a terrible situation for everyone involved, no matter what interventions or lack of interventions are done.
 
Rence said:
It’s never an easy decision for anyone who wants to deliver a viable and healthy baby and welcome that baby into their family. Being pregnant and having that pregnancy produce physiological stress on the body which leads to further illness and threat to a woman’s life is not good place to be. I think we take for granted, that since these are rare instances, how lucky we are to not be in those positions, or to have loved-ones in these positions. It’s hard enough when we, or those we love, fall ill to such things as cancers, traumas, heart and lung diseases, and other system diseases. But it’s even worse when something can be done to save that person, but there is an ethical and “moral” dilemma to take such action to help the person live instead of die.
The Church allows “indirect” abortion in the case of a woman’s life being in danger, such as with tubal pregnancies, cancer, traumas, etc. But also calls for the health care providers to do all that they can to save both, and if they can’t save both, the priority is with the fetus
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Post 218 is hyperbolic in tone, off-topic in content, and illogical in being a non-sequitur.

Ryecroft said nothing about “what she would be willing to do if she were carrying the mother of God.” You make ryecroft sound as if she was sitting around deliberating about whom she could eliminate, like some evil mastermind which could be the subject of fiction. She wanted to eliminate nothing and no one. What happens in an emergency room is not a case of remote, careful choice, planning, and calculation. Rather, lives, plural, are suddenly, surprisingly in the balance in the flicker of an eye – lives which all medical professionals and any patient – most especially a pregnant patient aching for the healthy completion of her pregnancy culminating in a live birth, want desperately to preserve.

It’s philosophically convenient for others to believe that such decisions are made casually and coolly. They are not. Even the medical professionals themselves often agonize over the decisions, during and after – no matter what the decision is – if the outcome does not result in the saving of all lives involved. Some of you have real caricatures in mind, apparently, when you draw some of your conclusions.

As to assuming that she committed a sin, that is not your place to assess, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch. You may make a statement about an act or behavior in general, but never the culpability of a particular person. That is a matter for that person, his or her priestly advisors & confessors, and God. Anything else is an invasion of her privacy and her dignity.
Click to expand...
First of all, I would like to thank Elizabeth, Mark Anthony and Rence and even Mary Gail who have each stood up for me in their own way. I appreciate it.
I do generally have certain people on ignore, but after seeing these responses, I went ahead and read the post that caused all you to come to help me out - but since I’m aware of the question, no matter how imposibly hypothetical, I will go ahead and make a response. Actually, if you ask some of the Jewish or former Jewish members on here you will find with some of them that this situation is one that was taken into account by the Jews (who obviously were the religion of the line of David). At that time, if the mother could be saved when the child could not, the mother would be saved. I don’t believe that an all knowing God would have put the mother of HIs Son’s mother in that situation. I honestly believe that if God had wanted me to die that He would have had me die- instead he gave my doctors the knowledge and skill to save my life. I wish it would have happened tor the fetus I was carrying but medicine isn’t there yet. It seems that in order to stick with Church teachings, If I’m faced with the same situation, it would be better (according to Church teaching) to have the fetus delivered as soon as I get the news that I’m headed for the same situation- chances are it will be delivered dead or dying, but apparently, that would be better than waiting to try to get the fetus to a viable stage and maybe wind up being faced with the same situation, where we both would likely loose our lives I have a hard time believing that’s what God would want, but I guess it doesn’t matter what my concience says as long as the CCC is followed.

Also, I think it’s extremely presumptious of anyone to assume anything about me - especially for the reason that I said I have no guilt. I have no guilt because I did nothing wrong. And I think it’s even more presumptious of others on here to say or imply that anyone on here is excommunicated or anything else. Let’s leave that to the Priests, the Bishops and most of all God. Let’s stop pointing out the splinter in other’s eyes instead of ignoring the stake stuck in one’s own. The God that I seen to hear referred to often sounds like a God who is sitting with a CCC and a book (or having someone else do that)- and waiting for the smallest infraction so it can be noted for later judgement. And the God/Jesus/Holy Ghost Trinity that I know and love is not a Supreme Being who needs anyone to do His judging for Him.
“Abba” best translated is closer to kind of “Papa” or “Daddy” - and I know that my Earthly Daddy was more ready to exalt in my acccomplishments than wait around for me to make a mistake so it could be noted. This forum is really beginning to scare me because I know others are seeing the way members judge each other, even going as far as to say that someone is excommunicated - I can’t imagine that new people coming to this site feel comfortable speaking their opinions when they see others being attacked or put down because they don’t agree with others. I’ll be the first to admit I’ve lost my temper and I’m sorry that has happened - (that’s why I’ve gotten to the point of putting certain people on ignore)-but don’t you think that God - Daddy- would want us to treat each other the same way Jesus said He wanted us to treat each other - whatever you do to the least of your brother you do to Me-(in other words treat each other as you would treat Me). I think certain people on this forum need to consider that.
God Bless,
Rye
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Post 218 is hyperbolic in tone, off-topic in content, and illogical in being a non-sequitur.

Ryecroft said nothing about “what she would be willing to do if she were carrying the mother of God.” You make ryecroft sound as if she was sitting around deliberating about whom she could eliminate, like some evil mastermind which could be the subject of fiction. She wanted to eliminate nothing and no one. What happens in an emergency room is not a case of remote, careful choice, planning, and calculation. Rather, lives, plural, are suddenly, surprisingly in the balance in the flicker of an eye – lives which all medical professionals and any patient – most especially a pregnant patient aching for the healthy completion of her pregnancy culminating in a live birth, want desperately to preserve.

It’s philosophically convenient for others to believe that such decisions are made casually and coolly. They are not. Even the medical professionals themselves often agonize over the decisions, during and after – no matter what the decision is – if the outcome does not result in the saving of all lives involved. Some of you have real caricatures in mind, apparently, when you draw some of your conclusions.

As to assuming that she committed a sin, that is not your place to assess, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch. You may make a statement about an act or behavior in general, but never the culpability of a particular person. That is a matter for that person, his or her priestly advisors & confessors, and God. Anything else is an invasion of her privacy and her dignity.
Click to expand...
As usual, fascinating, elizabeth 502.

However:

As for abortion, I’ve no idea who ryecroft’s baby was. Do you?
What was intended for that life? Was it very sacred??? I don’t know. Do you?

Abortion is a sin, in every circumstance. That is CERTAINTY.
Was/is ryecroft guilty of such? I’ve no idea. Do you?

rence has stated and others concurred, that absolution was given to a mother
whose priests/bishops “understood” the woman had no choice.
Then why was absolution given?
If rence & Co. were NOT referring to ryecroft, then why are YOU offended by my words?
Why are YOU offended in any event?

The point of this and a few other recent threads has been an ongoing attempt
to state that abortion is NOT gravely evil, that abortion is NOT sinful,
that abortion might at times merely be one’s “only” choice.

That is a pernicious lie.
That is a full load of eveil.
If that is YOUR opinion, then speak for yourself. rence did.

rence stated clearly that she DISAGREES with Church teaching on the evil of abortion.
Too bad for rence. If you hold to the same dissent, then too bad for you too.

You must AGREE that ryecroft has supporters for her action of a willing abortion.
Are you one of them? If so, then SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.

You will accomplish nothing by attempting to twist my words.

Fascinating to note that “some of you” have caricatures in mind, acc to YOU.
Who might those “some of you” be, e502???
Would it be anyone who abides by Church Teaching???

I’ve worked in pro-life for 40+yrs.
I’ve attended more than 100 live childbirths.
I’ve seen 4 babies die before their time, mid-pregnancy and without abortion.
I’ve seen NO MOTHERS die during pregnancy or delivery.

The following prayer flows from infallible Church teaching.
Hope you don’t object to it too.

O Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to thee!

PS Sorry to say: MY COMPUTER IS DOWN AT HOME.
If that were not the case, I’d be on this thread until I dropped dead!

A terribly strange notion of UN-TRUTH has entered CA re abortion.
It’s beyond merely vile, it’s horrific.
 
Post 224:

No. Again, refer to your Catechism. Abortion is, among many other acts, always morally grave matter. Grave matter is not always sin. To say that you are in a position to know that ryecroft sinned and needed absolution is not a judgment for you (or me) to make. Anything else does not accord with classic and orthodox Catholic moral theology.
 
Rence said:
or 2) the Church considers this subject again and allows for the preservation of the woman when her life is in danger, especially in those lose-lose situations where both won’t live without intervention, and in the cases where the fetus will not live no matter what interventions are done.
Click to expand...
Well, that is what this entire thread is about. I certainly hope that the teaching isn’t changed because it is an INFALLIBLE teaching. If it were changed the entire foundation of the Church collapses and the Protestants were right all along.

infallible teachings were given to us by God and thus CANNOT change.
 
Rence said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear Rence, they are talking about the culpability of each individual, not about reconsidering changing the law of the Church in ANY individual instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top