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

[catharina]

And I would say that those priests are better trained in discernments of moral theological questions than you are. That’s for starters.

God does not require any woman to martyr herself when she knows (is told by physicians with superior medical knowledge than herself) that her very survival is threatened by the birth. St. Gianna chose to martyr herself, but neither God nor the Church asks anyone to do this. Ryecroft did not excommunicate herself because any act to qualify as grave sin (including excommunicating matter) must be accompanied by full knowledge, and the decision to act cannot be clouded by desperation, heightened confusion, the sincere perception of emergency, etc. This is classic moral theology. All sin (including excommunicating sin) must meet certain criteria.

She chose life: the only life that she was told at that point was survivable.

All she knew in her extremity was that the mother’s life would be killed as well as the child’s
IF she did not save her own.

Such absolute knowledge is not given to us.
She and baby might have died together in a car accident -
or been wiped out with thousands of others in a natural disaster.

Pretending that one has the absolute knowledge of Almighty God does not make it so.

My agreement rests with Mother Teresa’s words: “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.” It will not rest with “discernments” of priests who have fallen into the gravest error.

 

[bibagirl]

If you insisted that 100 priests commended you for making the “only decision” you could, I’d easily tell you that those 100 priests were in error. You claim that two priests have told you that you made “the only decision” you “could” and that means those priests are claiming YOU (and they) know much better than God. Therefore, I doubt your story about the “support” from priests. Regarding the “doctors” also, they have no right to step in to act on behalf of God when their action involves the death of your child. Your choice was to imagine you know better than God on matters of life and death. Your choice was to destroy your child with the understanding that death might spare your life. NOT ok.

If the priests acted in support of your abortion, then they have automatically incurred an excommunication just as you (and your husband?) did. As in any other situation regarding abortion, you chose death for a baby. Nothing else matters.

ALL LIFE IS SACRED, the mother’s and the child’s. We are not allowed to kill either.

Why are you being so nasty to ryecroft? She had a tough decision to make and she did what was the only option at the time, according to the doctors, and her decision was approved by two priests.

What gives you the right to attack her about this, when all authorities agreed that this was the only option. The baby was going to die anyway, if she continued the pregnancy and died herself. At least one life was saved in this situation. If she´d continued the pregnancy, it´s certain suicide (yes I know about St. Gianna, but at least in that situation the child had a chance of survival). Ryecroft´s kidneys were failing, she couldn´t have continued the pregnancy much longer, much less bring it to term. So instead of deliberately ending two lives (which for me is terrible, almost like suicide), she chose life and had the procedure done.

I´m sure ryecroft has had a tough time about this situation, and could do with some kindness and charity, not people pointing fingers and saying “you broke the rules…you´re bad” (which isn´t true in any case). So lets be a bit nicer to ryecroft, ok?

 

[bpbasilphx]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

---

**You’re right.

Your knolwedge is limited.**

 

[catharina]

Why are you being so nasty to ryecroft? She had a tough decision to make and she did what was the only option at the time, according to the doctors, and her decision was approved by two priests.

What gives you the right to attack her about this, when all authorities agreed that this was the only option. The baby was going to die anyway, if she continued the pregnancy and died herself. At least one life was saved in this situation. If she´d continued the pregnancy, it´s certain suicide (yes I know about St. Gianna, but at least in that situation the child had a chance of survival). Ryecroft´s kidneys were failing, she couldn´t have continued the pregnancy much longer, much less bring it to term. So instead of deliberately ending two lives (which for me is terrible, almost like suicide), she chose life and had the procedure done.

I´m sure ryecroft has had a tough time about this situation, and could do with some kindness and charity, not people pointing fingers and saying “you broke the rules…you´re bad” (which isn´t true in any case). So lets be a bit nicer to ryecroft, ok?

My first staement to her was this:
“I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, nonetheless whether one doctor or 100 doctors said that (in their opinion) you would die during the pregnancy, they offered their OPINION.”

That is not nasty. It is truthful. There seems to be a small element within the Church who imagine certain situations can sway the teachings of the Church regarding abortion. That element is mistaken. Life - and the moment of our death - is reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter.

 

[bibagirl]

My first staement to her was this:
“I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, nonetheless whether one doctor or 100 doctors said that (in their opinion) you would die during the pregnancy, they offered their OPINION.”

That is not nasty. It is truthful. There seems to be a small element within the Church who imagine certain situations can sway the teachings of the Church regarding abortion. That element is mistaken. Life - and the moment of our death - is reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter.

Catharina

When I read your post it seemed to have a nasty, judgemental tone to it. I´m sure, as a Catholic, it was not your intention to hurt her feelings.

I see that your view of the abortion issue is more pure, more “black and white” than mine. I see “grey” in more places than you, there are many complicated, unstraightforward situations in this life, with no easy answers.

I guess my view of Ryecroft´s situation is, why deliberately let two people die when there´s a chance at saving the life of one. Your view is that there´s no ´bending of the rules´. I guess we´ll just have to agree to differ.

God bless

 

[ryecroft]

If you insisted that 100 priests commended you for making the “only decision” you could, I’d easily tell you that those 100 priests were in error. You claim that two priests have told you that you made “the only decision” you “could” and that means those priests are claiming YOU (and they) know much better than God. Therefore, I doubt your story about the “support” from priests. Regarding the “doctors” also, they have no right to step in to act on behalf of God when their action involves the death of your child. Your choice was to imagine you know better than God on matters of life and death. Your choice was to destroy your child with the understanding that death might spare your life. NOT ok.

If the priests acted in support of your abortion, then they have automatically incurred an excommunication just as you (and your husband?) did. As in any other situation regarding abortion, you chose death for a baby. Nothing else matters.

ALL LIFE IS SACRED, the mother’s and the child’s. We are not allowed to kill either.

Wow - I’m so glad I came on here and got to hear from you - now with my next pregnancy, (which I’ll be able to have because I’m alive), I’ll make sure to tell my doctor’s and my priest to keep you on speed dial - that way, if or when a problem arises, I’ll make sure to let them know that they should call you to find out what to do - since obviously, with your vast medical knowledge and years of medical experience with problem pregnancies and direct line to God, you would know better than my doctor’'s 20 plus years of medical knowledge and experience and all of my priest’s experience and time at seminary. And while we’re at it, let God know that he doesn’t have to worry about me on judgment day - because His job has already been done for Him by Catharina. It’s good to know there is someone out there who can do better than all of them. And it wasn’t an opinion I would die - it was a fact that we both would have died without intervention - my death along with the fetus is pointless - I chose LIFE.

 

[catharina]

bibagirl and ryecroft -

despite your insistence that I’m making this ‘personal,’ the fact is that I’m doing no more than quoting Church teaching. Now, as ever, the Church says there is no allowance for abortion - even if all the doctors in the world say it’s an OK thing. As to “judging” your spiritual state, it’s just as clear that the Church teaching imposes immediate excommunication on anyone who is supportive on “choosing” an abortion. I’m not inventing the teaching; I’m simply saying that it is the teaching. The Church also instructs anyone to have the penalty lifted through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

Poor ryecroft? Sure. Yet far worse, poor poor poor dead baby.

 

[Elizabeth502]

the fact is that I’m doing no more than quoting Church teaching.

…except that you conveniently leave out the most essential part of all sin without exception: to be categorized as sin, it has to have all the elements, which in her case were not present.

Life - and the moment of our death - is reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter.

Judgment, at the moment of ryecroft’s death, will thankfully be reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter as spoken by the Church and her head, Jesus Christ.

Ryecroft, there’s no use trying to enlighten someone who is unaware of the essential elements of sin, decision, free will, and how they figure into the protection of all life, including one’s own. I wouldn’t rely on the condemning tone of someone who, when it comes to understanding the operating principles of moral theology and the teachings of the Church, speaks in her posts like a cafeteria Catholic with limited knowledge.

Be at peace in the merciful heart of Jesus.

 

[Elizabeth502]

the fact is that I’m doing no more than quoting Church teaching.

…except that you conveniently leave out the most essential part of all sin without exception: to be categorized as sin, it has to have all the elements, which in her case were not present.

Life - and the moment of our death - is reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter.

Judgment, at the moment of ryecroft’s death, will thankfully be reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter as spoken by the Church and her head, Jesus Christ.

Ryecroft, there’s no use trying to enlighten someone who is unaware of the essential elements of sin, decision, free will, and how they figure into the protection of all life, including one’s own. I wouldn’t rely on the condemning tone of someone who, when it comes to understanding the operating principles of moral theology and the teachings of the Church, speaks in her posts like a cafeteria Catholic with limited knowledge.

Be at peace in the merciful heart of Jesus.

 

[catharina]

…except that you conveniently leave out the most essential part of all sin without exception: to be categorized as sin, it has to have all the elements, which in her case were not present.

Judgment, at the moment of ryecroft’s death, will thankfully be reserved to God Alone. To say otherwise is to abandon the truth of the matter as spoken by the Church and her head, Jesus Christ.

Ryecroft, there’s no use trying to enlighten someone who is unaware of the essential elements of sin, decision, free will, and how they figure into the protection of all life, including one’s own. I wouldn’t rely on the condemning tone of someone who, when it comes to understanding the operating principles of moral theology and the teachings of the Church, speaks in her posts like a cafeteria Catholic with limited knowledge.

Be at peace in the merciful heart of Jesus.

I’ve not accused ryecroft of any sin. You have denied that any sin could be present in her abortion choice. Serious sin involes serious matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. Lacking any part means there is no serious sin. Why you would be quick to insist there is “no” sin in her abortion-choice is beyond me - when the Church herself defines abortion as grievous sin. (Re my Faith? I never even entered the cafeteria.)

 

[bibagirl]

bibagirl and ryecroft -

despite your insistence that I’m making this ‘personal,’ the fact is that I’m doing no more than quoting Church teaching. Now, as ever, the Church says there is no allowance for abortion - even if all the doctors in the world say it’s an OK thing. As to “judging” your spiritual state, it’s just as clear that the Church teaching imposes immediate excommunication on anyone who is supportive on “choosing” an abortion. I’m not inventing the teaching; I’m simply saying that it is the teaching. The Church also instructs anyone to have the penalty lifted through the sacrament of Reconciliation.

Poor ryecroft? Sure. Yet far worse, poor poor poor dead baby.

Catharina, you may be quoting church teaching but one of my favourite quotes of all time is: "The devil can cite scripture for his own purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek. [Merchant Of Venice - Shakespeare]” I´m not suggesting anything satanic or insulting, It´s just that this quote for me always reminds me that things can be taken out of context or misinterpreted and I´m only saying that scripture (and church teaching) can be made to fit any arguement.

Why, at one point of history, the church taught, and indeed implimented the burning of “witches”. My view is that, yes the church has teachings but lets look at things with common sense too! And if Ryecroft went to two priests and they BOTH concurred with her doctors, well that´s good enough for me.

Yes poor baby. It did not have any chance at life in any case. It´s very sad. But Ryecroft is not to blame. She did not chose to kill her baby. The baby was going to die in any case. She chose (rightly) to live. It would just be silly for Ryecroft to die needlessly when her child had zero chance at living anyway.

 

[catharina]

Catharina, you may be quoting church teaching but one of my favourite quotes of all time is: "The devil can cite scripture for his own purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek. [Merchant Of Venice - Shakespeare]” I´m not suggesting anything satanic or insulting, It´s just that this quote for me always reminds me that things can be taken out of context or misinterpreted and I´m only saying that scripture (and church teaching) can be made to fit any arguement.

Why, at one point of history, the church taught, and indeed implimented the burning of “witches”. My view is that, yes the church has teachings but lets look at things with common sense too! And if Ryecroft went to two priests and they BOTH concurred with her doctors, well that´s good enough for me.

Yes poor baby. It did not have any chance at life in any case. It´s very sad. But Ryecroft is not to blame. She did not chose to kill her baby. The baby was going to die in any case. She chose (rightly) to live. It would just be silly for Ryecroft to die needlessly when her child had zero chance at living anyway.

My own mother was born on the anniversary of Shakespeare’s birth - but in 1916 - yet no one in my extended family ever relied on the works of Shakespeare for moral guidance. Two priests? ryecroft found two priests who agreed with her decision.

Welcome to TODAY. Church teaching is that abortion is ALWAYS sinful. This teaching has been consistent for 2000 years, no exceptions. The difference in older times was disagreement as to the moment of true fetal life. Science has solved that problem for us; life begins at conception - although some folks in earlier days couldn’t recognize that.

In relation to Church teaching, you are defending the indefensible.

 

[bibagirl]

My own mother was born on the anniversary of Shakespeare’s birth - but in 1916 - yet no one in my extended family ever relied on the works of Shakespeare for moral guidance. Two priests? ryecroft found two priests who agreed with her decision.

Welcome to TODAY. Church teaching is that abortion is ALWAYS sinful. This teaching has been consistent for 2000 years, no exceptions. The difference in older times was disagreement as to the moment of true fetal life. Science has solved that problem for us; life begins at conception - although some folks in earlier days couldn’t recognize that.

In relation to Church teaching, you are defending the indefensible.

Catharina the bible isn´t the only book in the world!

I agree that abortion is wrong. We don´t differ on that point. Where we disagree is, if the fetus has no chance at life, should the mother be saved? You say No, I say Yes. I see that as a disgraceful waste of precious Life.

It´s much the same issues as when there´s a fallopian tube pregnancy - the same arguements emerge. The fetus doesn´t have any possible chance at life, and is endangering the mother´s life by continuing the pregnancy, certain death if the pregnancy advances far.

I know if this ever happens to be, I will chose life, as the Lord hates willful waste of life. And I will have no problem on my conscience or in my prayers to the Lord.

 

[catharina]

Catharina the bible isn´t the only book in the world!

Oh. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Your point? Nothing.

I agree that abortion is wrong. We don´t differ on that point. Where we disagree is, if the fetus has no chance at life, should the mother be saved? You say No, I say Yes. I see that as a disgraceful waste of precious Life.

**You disagree with the teaching of the Church. Your opinion over God’s will. **

It´s much the same issues as when there´s a fallopian tube pregnancy - the same arguements emerge. The fetus doesn´t have any possible chance at life, and is endangering the mother´s life by continuing the pregnancy, certain death if the pregnancy advances far. Many differences in place - and still abortion is NOT allowed. Get back to me when you’ve become a moral theologian.

I know if this ever happens to be, I will chose life, as the Lord hates willful waste of life. And I will have no problem on my conscience or in my prayers to the Lord.

"Choosing life" has long indicated choosing life for mother and child. God has the final word. Attempting to turn “choosing life” into choosing a mother’s life is horrific and terribly ugly.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ve not accused ryecroft of any sin.

You most certainly have.

You have denied that any sin could be present in her abortion choice.

No. I did not deny a theoretical. I denied the actual as she stated it. Neither you nor I are in a position to say authoritatively whether she did or did not sin. However, as she has described her state of mind and the conditions surrounding the decision, excommunicatable sin would not be indicated for anyone who understands well classic, traditional Catholic moral theology. It is a tentative actual, and anyone outside the situation ryecroft was in at the time would have no moral authority to assume sin, given what she asserts. (Which is why the priests she consulted similarly gave her the guidance they gave her. They also did not “know” for sure, but were operating on the facts as she presented it to them, including her state of mind as she described it. And since they’re trained in such matters and you are not, I’m glad that she relies on them and not on you.) If her state of mind was accurately described, then no, she couldn’t have committed grave sin of any kind.

I never even entered the cafeteria.)

Anyone who believes that some sin falls under the principles of Catholic moral theology whereas other sin lies outside those principles, is in fact a cafeteria Catholic. They exist on the right and on the left.

 

[Elizabeth502]

God has the final word.

Yep. God. Not you.

 

[catharina]

You most certainly have.

No. I did not deny a theoretical. I denied the actual as she stated it. Neither you nor I are in a position to say authoritatively whether she did or did not sin. However, as she has described her state of mind and the conditions surrounding the decision, excommunicatable sin would not be indicated for anyone who understands well classic, traditional Catholic moral theology. It is a tentative actual, and anyone outside the situation ryecroft was in at the time would have no moral authority to assume sin, given what she asserts. (Which is why the priests she consulted similarly gave her the guidance they gave her. They also did not “know” for sure, but were operating on the facts as she presented it to them, including her state of mind as she described it. And since they’re trained in such matters and you are not, I’m glad that she relies on them and not on you.) If her state of mind was accurately described, then no, she couldn’t have committed grave sin of any kind.

Anyone who believes that some sin falls under the principles of Catholic moral theology whereas other sin lies outside those principles, is in fact a cafeteria Catholic. They exist on the right and on the left.

Your awkward presentaion is pathetic.

In itself, abortion is ALWAYS a grievous sin. What you seem to be attempting to say is that there’s a question as to whether or not ryecroft was/is culpable of that sin. Too bad you didn’t SAY that. Nonetheless, abortion is always a grievous sin.
Get it? YET?

(Odd that you imagine you know my training.
Odder still that you see yourself as capable of declaring a non-sin of grievous sin.)

 

[catharina]

Yep. God. Not you.

God’s final word is that abortion is always a grievous and deadly sin.

Culpability is another matter entirely.
Too bad you can’t grasp that.

 

[bibagirl]

"Choosing life" has long indicated choosing life for mother and child. God has the final word. Attempting to turn “choosing life” into choosing a mother’s life is horrific and terribly ugly.

Wow you´ve switched to red font - that must mean you´re really angry.

I don´t have time to answer your points just now, as I have to go. I´ll be back to you later (by which time you may have calmed down enough to use normal black font!)

 

[catharina]

Wow you´ve switched to red font - that must mean you´re really angry.

I don´t have time to answer your points just now, as I have to go. I´ll be back to you later (by which time you may have calmed down enough to use normal black font!)

It seems you’ve made another goofy assumption.
I use red font to honor the Sacred Heart.
Do you use red font to express anger? Maybe so.