Does the Church place the unborn at a higher value of protection than the born? (EDITED TITLE)

[kage_ar]

What it has to do with your post is that it is not suicide to die in trying to save another, in fact the Scriptures tell us “Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends.”

 

[bibagirl]

The Church has never taught error. Never ever ever ever.

Church teachings in matters of Faith and Morals have never changed, they are eternal and outside of time.

As far as “controversial pregnancies”, the Church in her wisdom says one can never choose one life over another. A pregnant mother may be treated for a life threatening condition, that treatment cannont include the direct killing of her child. It is in the Catechism, it is in many Church documents - you can read all of these on line at www.vatican.va

When a doctor says a mother will die without treatment, the Christian mother must insist that the child not be killed. If the child must be removed from the body of the mother, the child is to be delivered - surgically or vaginally - and then baptized and treated with the proper medical care and respect. Should the child live one second or one hundred years after that delivery, the child is not to be intentionally killed.

Thank you for clearing that technical point kage_ar. However for somebody like Ryecroft that may seem as if the church value the life of her fetus above her life when she faces certain death by continuing the pregnancy. That said, I do not know the circumstances of Ryecroft´s surgery so perhaps her surgery was not, after all, against catholic doctrine.

I´m in these forums to learn, and in my short time here I feel I´ve learned a lot.

I meant to include in previous post Malleus Maleficarum (1486), Heinrich Kraemer & Johann Sprenger (Dominican monks), Inquisition handbook allegedly commissioned by Inocencio VIII (yes I know that there´s some doubt about the authenticity of the papal bull). However, it is very difficult to find good solid evidence about the Catholic church burning witches, while seems easier to find about the Protestant church burning witches. So yes I may have overstated my case in that one there kage_ar

 

[TeresaAnn]

What it has to do with your post is that it is not suicide to die in trying to save another, in fact the Scriptures tell us “Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends.”

It doesn’t address my post. The reason why I asked is because it is known that the baby will not survive outside of the mother. So knowing that you are letting yourself die with the knowledge that the baby will not survive either would make me worry what side of the line I was on if I were in the situation. I would be begging God for guidance!

It keeps being repeated that if it is God’s will, the baby will survive despite the mother dying. I guess this could happen if they were able to keep the mother’s body alive on machines until the baby is old enough. I think I saw that on a doctor show or something. In Ryecroft’s situation it wouldn’t have worked though because of the type of medical issues she had.

Originally Posted by kage_ar
The Church has never taught error. Never ever ever ever.

Church teachings in matters of Faith and Morals have never changed, they are eternal and outside of time.

As far as “controversial pregnancies”, the Church in her wisdom says one can never choose one life over another. A pregnant mother may be treated for a life threatening condition, that treatment cannont include the direct killing of her child. It is in the Catechism, it is in many Church documents - you can read all of these on line at www.vatican.va

When a doctor says a mother will die without treatment, the Christian mother must insist that the child not be killed. If the child must be removed from the body of the mother, the child is to be delivered - surgically or vaginally - and then baptized and treated with the proper medical care and respect. Should the child live one second or one hundred years after that delivery, the child is not to be intentionally killed.

Now, why didn’t this come up earlier? There is a big difference between what you describe here and what was said earlier (the mother must die). Catharina, do you agree with this?

 

[catharina]

It doesn’t address my post. The reason why I asked is because it is known that the baby will not survive outside of the mother. So knowing that you are letting yourself die with the knowledge that the baby will not survive either would make me worry what side of the line I was on if I were in the situation. I would be begging God for guidance!

It keeps being repeated that if it is God’s will, the baby will survive despite the mother dying. I guess this could happen if they were able to keep the mother’s body alive on machines until the baby is old enough. I think I saw that on a doctor show or something. In Ryecroft’s situation it wouldn’t have worked though because of the type of medical issues she had.

Now, why didn’t this come up earlier? There is a big difference between what you describe here and what was said earlier (the mother must die). Catharina, do you agree with this?

I agree with Church teaching that each life, mother and child, must be regarded and treated as sacred and precious. One cannot ever be killed by abortion to “save” the other.

Teresa, the original question stated by so many was/is whether abstaining from abortion might be considered as an act of suicide by a pregnant medically-at-risk pregnant mother.

The singular mention of suicide in reference to abortions states the very opposite:

"The Church was also, and at all times, concerned about the woman’s spiritual welfare. Since it regarded abortion as a grave sin, it believed that it posed a serious danger to the woman’s immortal soul. Naturally, it wanted to discourage women from having an abortion since it regarded this violation of the commandment to love one’s neighbor as a form of spiritual suicide.

Abortion Violates The Law Of Love

In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas dealt with the question of whether it is permissible to section the uterus of a pregnant woman if this is the only way to baptize the fetus that is in danger of dying. The argument in favor of doing this is that the eternal life of the fetus is more important than the temporal life of its mother. Aquinas refuses to allow this and quotes St. Paul (Rom. 3:8) who says: “We should not do evil that there may come good.” It is an impermissible evil, according to Aquinas, to impose direct physical harm on a pregnant woman (in all probability causing her death) even when the good that is intended—the eternal salvation of the fetus—might be construed in a particularly theological sense to be a greater good than continuing the temporal life of the mother.29 Aquinas does not believe that an unbaptized fetus is necessarily deprived of salvation; but the logic of his argument reveals his conviction that even if the fetus stood to suffer a greater loss than the loss of its mother’s temporal life, the mother’s right to be protected from assault remains inviolable.

The three-century theological discussion between 1450-1750 centered on whether a woman ever had a right to abort. The factor that sustained the discussion was a genuine and abiding concern that, in certain circumstances, continued pregnancy would endanger a woman’s health, marriage, or reputation. No exception was found that would permit direct abortion, however, because no exception could be found that did not logically extend to other exceptions that were not prudent to make or failed to uphold the principle that all innocent human life warrants equal protection. But the debate continued in an effort to protect the pregnant woman as much as possible without violating more general principles that protected everyone."

Also stated in the same document:
"The Church has always upheld the principle that all innocent human life is deserving of protection. In trying to find exceptions to the abortion prohibition in the interest of providing better care for the pregnant woman, the Church never treated one form of human life as more important than another. Pope Pius XII makes this point clear when he states:

Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.33 "

Both quotes are taken from
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3362&CFID=10643201&CFTOKEN=26130755

We are called to follow the One Who proved willing to lay down His life for us.

 

[Victorious]

You’ve thrown a ton of church teaching at me but you still have given no answer to what good would have come from both of us dying-and you may believe that all of this Church teaching allows you to know how God will judge myself or anyone in a similar situation but you lack any understanding of the compassion I know God has. My husband would have lost a wife - children a mother neices and nephews an aunt, parents a daughter-grand parents a grand daughter and God Children a God Mother -no good what soever would have come from two deaths and until you can tell me specifically what good would have come from my death as well as the fetal death than you’re not even worth my time.

The answer to this is that there is something far worse than death, and that is eternal damnation. Nothing in the whole universe comes close to being as horrific as this. We are obliged to suffer anything and everything, including death, if by doing so we may avoid eternal damnation and save our souls. Everything this life has to offer, including years on the planet, is trash compared to eternal life. Failure to save our souls is irreparable, and eternal. The great good that would have come from your death for the sake of your child would be eternal salvation, and deliverance from the danger of ever again separating yourself from the friendship of God. All the saints yearned for the day when they could never again offend God and imperil their immortal souls.

I’m not sure this is true. If you accept the just war theory, which is part of Catholic tradition, innocent lives could be lost in a morally acceptable “just war.”

The difference, though, is that deaths inflicted on innocents in a just war are unintentional. Abortion is the intentional infliction of death on an unborn baby.

 

[catharina]

The answer to this is that there is something far worse than death, and that is eternal damnation. Nothing in the whole universe comes close to being as horrific as this. We are obliged to suffer anything and everything, including death, if by doing so we may avoid eternal damnation and save our souls. Everything this life has to offer, including years on the planet, is trash compared to eternal life. Failure to save our souls is irreparable, and eternal. The great good that would have come from your death for the sake of your child would be eternal salvation, and deliverance from the danger of ever again separating yourself from the friendship of God. All the saints yearned for the day when they could never again offend God and imperil their immortal souls.

The difference, though, is that deaths inflicted on innocents in a just war are unintentional. Abortion is the intentional infliction of death on an unborn baby.

Extremely well-stated. I applaud you.

 

[limerick]

Sorry - I’ve no intention of responding any more to your hijack to “just war.”
Repeating: all life is sacred.

**If “all life is sacred”, seems you would be more appreciative that ryecroft survived her experience.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

Victorious tells us: *“Everything this life has to offer, including years on the planet, is trash compared to eternal life.” *

Not if we’re headed for hell.

“Failure to save our souls is irreparable, and eternal. The great good that would have come from your death for the sake of your child would be eternal salvation, and deliverance from the danger of ever again separating yourself from the friendship of God. All the saints yearned for the day when they could never again offend God and imperil their immortal souls”.

**ryecroft tells us the fetus was not viable, had absolutely no chance to survive. How does it glorify God to throw away one’s own life when the life of the other is not hanging in the balance, but is over?

And the “friendship of God”? Allow oneself to die for “friendship?” You Catholics are a complex and baffling bunch.

Limerick**

 

[catharina]

**If “all life is sacred”, seems you would be more appreciative that ryecroft survived her experience.

Limerick**

My initial post to ryecroft began this way:

"I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, …" (Post # 15, this thread)

Please read my posts before you attempt to read my heart and mind.
Better yet, don’t attempt to read my heart and mind at all.

 

[catharina]

Victorious tells us: *“Everything this life has to offer, including years on the planet, is trash compared to eternal life.” *

Not if we’re headed for hell.

"Failure to save our souls is irreparable, and eternal. The great good that would have come from your death for the sake of your child would be eternal salvation, and deliverance from the danger of ever again separating yourself from the friendship of God. All the saints yearned for the day when they could never again offend God and imperil their immortal souls".

**ryecroft tells us the fetus was not viable, had absolutely no chance to survive. How does it glorify God to throw away one’s own life when the life of the other is not hanging in the balance, but is over?

And the “friendship of God”? Allow oneself to die for “friendship?” **You Catholics ****are a complex and baffling bunch.

Limerick

OK. Now I better understand you. Thanks.

 

[limerick]

**Thanks for your judgment.

Of course ryecroft’s husband MIGHT have found a better wife, etc…
Who can deny that fact? She asked me for reasons** regarding her possible death. I gave some.

I didn’t put ryecroft on any train to Purgatory. I’m trying to communicate with you in terms you understand. Just because a woman dies in childbirth does not mean she immediately ascends to heaven amongst cherubim and seraphim. She still has sins to account for, she still has to do her time in Purgatory to purge her soul and become acceptable to God. Now are you going to tell me this is NOT the case?

Your backpedaling on the insults you hurled with regard to ryecroft’s husband finding a better wife and all the rest of it is dishonest. You said it with rancor. Just own up to it.

Limerick

 

[catharina]

I didn’t put ryecroft on any train to Purgatory. I’m trying to communicate with you in terms you understand. Just because a woman dies in childbirth does not mean she immediately ascends to heaven amongst cherubim and seraphim. She still has sins to account for, she still has to do her time in Purgatory to purge her soul and become acceptable to God. Now are you going to tell me this is NOT the case?

Your backpedaling on the insults you hurled with regard to ryecroft’s husband finding a better wife and all the rest of it is dishonest. You said it with rancor. Just own up to it.

Limerick

**
This discussion is about a Catholic teaching.
It’s clear since you’ve declared yourself “outside” the Catholic Church that there is little likelihood you can succeed in communicating with me in “terms” I understand.

Your opinion is only that. I said nothing to ryecroft “with rancor” regarding her possible death and her husband’s/family’s ability to move beyond it with great rewards and in perfect peace, due to HER profound sacrifice, a willingness to give her life to spare a deliberate killing of her I haven’t a clue regarding the state of ryecroft’s soul and any “need” for purgatory in her case. That’s YOUR assumption. My impressions falls more along the lines that any who sacrifice their lives for others have basically chosen a form of martyrdom. In that sense, it’s more easy to guess they’ll go straight to heaven.

Might I add - you can NOT read minds -
and you might be quite far out of your depth in this exchange.

PS - I will guess you did not intend to misinterpret my posts. Yet you did so.**

 

[Elizabeth502]

Better yet, don’t attempt to read my heart and mind at all.

I don’t see why you would ask anyone to do what you yourself have demonstrated you feel above the need to do to your fellow Christians.

You have read the hearts and minds of most of the posters who disagree with your interpretation of who gets to determine the particular applicability of sin to the gravity of a particular urgent situation. That determination does not belong to you, nor to anyone not ordained to do so.

 

[catharina]

I don’t see why you would ask anyone to do what you yourself have demonstrated you feel above the need to do to your fellow Christians.

You have read the hearts and minds of most of the posters who disagree with your interpretation of who gets to determine the particular applicability of sin to the gravity of a particular urgent situation. That determination does not belong to you, nor to anyone not ordained to do so.

I repeat my primary and essential statement:
abortion is ALWAYS forbidden by Church law.
Abortion is always GRAVELY sinful.
Can I determine who is culpable of such a sin? NEVER.

 

[limerick]

My initial post to ryecroft began this way:

"I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, …" (Post # 15, this thread)

Please read my posts before you attempt to read my heart and mind.
Better yet, don’t attempt to read my heart and mind at all.

“I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, …” (Post # 15, this thread)

"Of course ryecroft’s husband MIGHT have found a better wife, etc…
Who can deny that fact?" (Post #106, this thread)

**What happened in those intervening posts? How did you turn from a “sympathetic” woman to a stone-hurling madwoman? The fact that ryecroft’s husband MIGHT have found a “better wife” need not be addressed, at least by someone of refinement. You just don’t kick people when they’re down. It’s bad form.

One need not read all of your posts to catch your drift. So long as you are posting here I will continue to read, with sour amazement, what you have to contribute to the discussion. And if I choose to try to read your mind and heart, well, now, that’s up to me, isn’t it?

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

I repeat my primary and essential statement:
abortion is ALWAYS forbidden by Church law.
Abortion is always GRAVELY sinful.
Can I determine who is culpable of such a sin? NEVER.

**Abortion is ALWAYS forbidden by Church law.
Abortion is always GRAVELY sinful.
Limerick had a surgical abortion on June 1, 1971.
NOW can Catharina determine who is culpable of such a sin?

cul.pa.ble , adj.** Deserving of blame or censure.

L

 

[catharina]

**Abortion is ALWAYS forbidden by Church law.
Abortion is always GRAVELY sinful.
Limerick had a surgical abortion on June 1, 1971.
NOW can Catharina determine who is culpable of such a sin?

cul.pa.ble , adj.** Deserving of blame or censure.

L

Oh. I see. You have a dual and personal issue. That also makes sense to me since your responses to me are so strong, supposedly in regard to ryecroft.

I can’t judge anyone as to the magnitude/gravity (culpability) of any sin for an individual. That is also Church teaching. Such judgment rests with God.

The issue rests between God and the soul.
Within the Catholic church a priest can work to make an assessment of magnitude.

Nonetheless, the Church can and does say that abortion is ALWAYS gravely evil.
It seems clear that your abortion can still hold your attention - after 38 years.

Forgiveness is available to all in such a circumstance… Repentance leads one. If your action was due to an unexplored personal flaw, or to extraordinary ignorance, the YOU might be less culpable. Obviously, ditto for others.

However, it remains true that ABORTION is ALWAY GRAVELY EVIL.
THAT REMAINS AN ABSOLUTE TEACHING Of THE CHURCH.

 

[limerick]

**
This discussion is about a Catholic teaching.
It’s clear since you’ve declared yourself “outside” the Catholic Church that there is little likelihood you can succeed in communicating with me in “terms” I understand.
**
This discussion is about Catholic teaching, and it includes a few folks who are not practicing Catholics.****

Your opinion is only that.

As is yours.

I said nothing to ryecroft “with rancor” regarding her possible death and her husband’s/family’s ability to move beyond it with great rewards and in perfect peace, due to HER profound sacrifice, a willingness to give her life to spare a deliberate killing of her I haven’t a clue regarding the state of ryecroft’s soul and any “need” for purgatory in her case. That’s YOUR assumption.
**
We each draw assumptions based upon the manner in which ideas are presented in writing on this form. There is no body language, no nervous laughter, no wink*wink. Your attitude has conveyed a real contempt for ryecroft’s behavior, and as your posts have accelerated in negative tone and implication (the punishing red font, for instance), I felt that the place you and your words were taking me was to the Land of Censure, where ryecroft was a selfish, self-centered individual, whose husband would be better off with another woman, whose children would be better off with another mother, and whose supporters on this thread would be doomed to eternity in hell for watching her back against such a vile attack.

Yeah. I guess I was wrong.**

My impressions falls more along the lines that any who sacrifice their lives for others have basically chosen a form of martyrdom. In that sense, it’s more easy to guess they’ll go straight to heaven.

In hindsight, it’s easy to move oneself back to an acceptable stance when one has had time to consider that the posts aren’t being received well.

Might I add - you can NOT read minds -
and you might be quite far out of your depth in this exchange.

"Might be quite far out of [my] depth"? Or do you mean "You are quite far out of your depth in this exchange"? Which is it?

PS - I will guess you did not intend to misinterpret my posts. Yet you did so.

**You are more transparent than you realize.

Love,

Limerick**

 

[catharina]

limerick:
Vent away.

I am not offering my opinion.
I am repeating Church Teaching.
You find the facts and my posts to be annoying.

So be it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

.
Abortion is always GRAVELY sinful.
Can I determine who is culpable of such a sin? NEVER.

Congratulations on finally admitting what the Church has always known and taught. You’re making progress in your moral education.

Time to break out the champagne.