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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth502 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Check back ON MY POSTS, elizabeth502.

I have NEVER said differently.
Som folks seem MIGHTY defensive about absorbing/HEARING THESE FACTS.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
No.
You’re repeating incomplete Church Teaching, therefore erroneous church teaching.

All moral theology has a context, all of it.
Click to expand...
The error is yours.

Repaeating the truth can NEVER be untruthful.
It can be misunderstood though -
when others make the very worst of assumption - or are ignorant.
 
catharina said:
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.

Ryecroft’s situation was totally different than mine. If you want to shop and compare, just check out the many threads we have both posted on with regard to our respective dilemmas and our decision-making processes.

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.

**Yet you still weigh in with a heavy fist in your absolutes and your inexplicable character assassination attempts. **

The issue rests between God and the soul.

The issue is never at rest; it remains in flux; it waxes and wanes, accompanied by fear and anger and sorrow and the seeking of forgiveness.

Within the Catholic church a priest can work to make an assessment of magnitude.

Yes, except there are so many Catholics who argue with what the priests say and how the priests evaluate the situations, what good is that? It brings no comfort, only more questions.

Nonetheless, the Church can and does say that abortion is ALWAYS gravely evil.

No doubt.

It seems clear that your abortion can still hold your attention - after 38 years.

Shouldn’t it?

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.
**
Too much grey area for me. I know I committed a grave sin. I am not convinced that ryecroft did, though, or that I would not have chosen the path that she did under the same circumstances.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
 
I must add that I feel terrible for anyone who has had an abortion.
I feel just as badly for anyone who seeks to justify the act.
I feel sorrier yet for any Catholics who do so.
 
catharina said:
I must add that I feel terrible for anyone who has had an abortion.
I feel just as badly for anyone who seeks to justify the act.
I feel sorrier yet for any Catholics who do so.
Click to expand...
**Why feel sorrier for any Catholics who have abortions? The value of their repentance is precisely equal to the repentance of the non-Catholics. If they are repentant they are in no greater spiritual danger than any of the rest of us.

Limerick**
 
limerick said:
**Why feel sorrier for any Catholics who have abortions? The value of their repentance is precisely equal to the repentance of the non-Catholics. If they are repentant they are in no greater spiritual danger than any of the rest of us.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
Why? Many Catholics have been taught from childhood the absolute evil of abortion. Many other people have not received this teaching throughout their lifetimes. That can put an extra weight (of conscience) on their decisions of Catholics to abort their children.
 
catharina said:
The error is yours.

Repaeating the truth can NEVER be untruthful.
It can be misunderstood though -
when others make the very worst of assumption - or are ignorant.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not in error. I have an excellent, traditional Catholic theological education. Was never taught error or selective moral theology.
🙂
 
kage_ar said:
**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.
Click to expand...
I’m going back to this post. If this is correct, I have learned something today. This was the one situation where I wasn’t clear on the church’s teachings.

Personally, If my child would have the chance to survive I would give my life for him or her. In the case, where there is no chance of the baby surviving “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”.
and the future is in God’s hands. You never know, with a careful delivery and a lot of prayers the little one may survive.

Abortion is always wrong. Always. I’m glad to have that clarified.
 
Ryecroft had an indirect abortion and should not be treated as one who has had a direct abortion. As well intentioned as some of our posters may be, they are absolutely wrong in treating her like she commited evil or a sin, if the conditions of the priciple of double effect were met in her case. That’s probably why the two priests counseled her the way they did. Church teaching permits indirect abortions in those cases in which the conditions of the principle of double effect are met. These conditions must have been met.🙂
 
ready said:
Ryecroft had an indirect abortion and should not be treated as one who has had a direct abortion. As well intentioned as some of our posters may be, they are absolutely wrong in treating her like she commited evil or a sin, if the conditions of the priciple of double effect were met in her case. That’s probably why the two priests counseled her the way they did. Church teaching permits indirect abortions in those cases in which the conditions of the principle of double effect are met. These conditions must have been met.🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not clear why you are making such a statement re ryecroft.
Her own words in Post # 12 indicate differently.
"I wouldn’t be alive now if I hadn’t made the decision to end a pregnancy … ."

“Ending a pregnancy” is not related to double effect.
Did I miss some nuance mentioned elsewhere?
 
catharina said:
I’m not clear why you are making such a statement re ryecroft.
Her own words in Post # 12 indicate differently.
"I wouldn’t be alive now if I hadn’t made the decision to end a pregnancy … ."

“Ending a pregnancy” is not related to double effect.
Did I miss some nuance mentioned elsewhere?
Click to expand...
First of all, Ryecroft only had an indirect abortion - not the same thing as a direct abortion.
Secondly, she met with two priest for counsel, both of whom were taught Church teaching on indirect abortions and the conditions of the principle of double effect, which all priests are taught.
Thirdly, I will not assume those priests were ignorant of Church teaching. That would be being rash.
Fourthly, Ryecroft got her indirect abortion with the counsel of two priests who I have no reason to believe were incompetent as priests. ( I will leave that to the cynics to assume and rashly judge.)
Fifthly, she was under the guidance of the Catholic priests and if the conditions of the principle of double effect were met they exonerated her in her case of any guilt and in good faith she rightfully trusted in them. A noble thing.

That’s why I still am able to see she is not guilty. Do you know how many years priests study to become priests. Some of us know the Catechism (like myself) and think we know more than priests who have spent many years in the study of the faith and morals. I hated the way Ryecroft was treated by well intentioned posters. They were wrong and treated her as one who had procured a direct abortion condemned by the Church - as helpful as they were trying to be.
 
ready said:
First of all, Ryecroft only had an indirect abortion - not the same thing as a direct abortion.
Secondly, she met with two priest for counsel, both of whom were taught Church teaching on indirect abortions and the conditions of the principle of double effect, which all priests are taught.
Thirdly, I will not assume those priests were ignorant of Church teaching. That would be being rash.
Fourthly, Ryecroft got her indirect abortion with the counsel of two priests who I have no reason to believe were incompetent as priests. ( I will leave that to the cynics to assume and rashly judge.)
Fifthly, she was under the guidance of the Catholic priests and if the conditions of the principle of double effect were met they exonerated her in her case of any guilt and in good faith she rightfully trusted in them. A noble thing.

That’s why I still am able to see she is not guilty. Do you know how many years priests study to become priests. Some of us know the Catechism (like myself) and think we know more than priests who have spent many years in the study of the faith and morals. I hated the way Ryecroft was treated by well intentioned posters. They were wrong and treated her as one who had procured a direct abortion condemned by the Church - as helpful as they were trying to be.
Click to expand...
I have no idea if she is guilty or not.
I can only say that abortion is always gravely evil.
I know that because the Church says so.

Your first point: says who?
She has said she ended the pregnancy.
I have no idea if ryecroft “lost” a baby or had it removed.
Her own report sounds like one thing - not the other.
Yet you believe the other. WHY?

Your second point? pardon me? says who?
Why do you believe that reyecroft sought “permission” when my impression was that she
sought the counsel of two priests after she took action to end the pregnancy?

Your third point? ryecroft found two priests who say her aboortion was not wrong? - All abortion is wrong. Maybe they said she was not fully culpable. A different issue.

Your fourth point? Two priests denied the evil of abortion? Very sorry priests.

Your fifth point? ryecroft did not even imply this exchange!

None of us is free to declare ryecroft “guilty.”
Yet NONE of us is free to declare some abortions are NOT wrong.
ryecroft claims she had a planned abortion.
Why would I not believe her statement???
 
To Catharina:

Your first point: She ended her pregnacy with an indirect abortion - not a direct abortion.

Your second point: Rycroft said she sought out two priests on the matter.

Your third point: Indirect abortion IS NOT WRONG ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE MET REGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT!!! PERIOD. Rycroft had an indirect abortion - it was procured to save her from bleeding to death. The death of her child was a corrolary - not sought out as an end or for merely a good end. Look up the Churches teaching on the matter yourself. I am just trusting that the priests knew what they were talking about. Talk with a priest who studied these things, not me. They know more than I. I trust that those priests she spoke with judged that the child dying was not sought out for illicit reasons. That would make those two priests bad priests and the child’s death the result of a DIRECT abortion - which is evil and clearly morally wrong.

Your fourth point: Priests who know sound church teaching will not condemn an act of indirect abortion when the conditions are met regarding the priciple of double effect! Am I to assume they don’t know the difference between a direct abortion and an indirect abortion?

Your fifth point: Ryecroft is innocent of this evil act you accuse her of and the exchange from Ryecroft and others was unfair on their part. Consider reading up on what an indirect abortion is so you can know for the future exactly what it is. I’m just going to trust that those priests knew her indirect abortion was kosher with the church.

And Ryecroft NEVER claimed she had a planned DIRECT abortion. She had a planned INDIRECT ABORTION, and if the conditions in her case were met regarding the double effect SHE DID ***NO ***EVIL!
 
ready said:
To Catharina:

Your first point: She ended her pregnacy with an indirect abortion - not a direct abortion.

Your second point: Rycroft said she sought out two priests on the matter.

Your third point: Indirect abortion IS NOT WRONG ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE MET REGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT!!! PERIOD. Rycroft had an indirect abortion - it was procured to save her from bleeding to death. The death of her child was a corrolary - not sought out as an end or for merely a good end. Look up the Churches teaching on the matter yourself. I am just trusting that the priests knew what they were talking about. Talk with a priest who studied these things, not me. They know more than I. I trust that those priests she spoke with judged that the child dying was not sought out for illicit reasons. That would make those two priests bad priests and the child’s death the result of a DIRECT abortion - which is evil and clearly morally wrong.

Your fourth point: Priests who know sound church teaching will not condemn an act of indirect abortion when the conditions are met regarding the priciple of double effect! Am I to assume they don’t know the difference between a direct abortion and an indirect abortion?

Your fifth point: Ryecroft is innocent of this evil act you accuse her of and the exchange from Ryecroft and others was unfair on their part. Consider reading up on what an indirect abortion is so you can know for the future exactly what it is. I’m just going to trust that those priests knew her indirect abortion was kosher with the church.

And Ryecroft NEVER claimed she had a planned DIRECT abortion. She had a planned INDIRECT ABORTION, and if the conditions in her case were met regarding the double effect SHE DID ***NO ***EVIL!
Click to expand...
ryecroft claimed THIS:
She has said she ended the pregnancy.

That sounds like deliberate action to me.

Why you think othewise is beyond me.
Have you read other posts by ryecroft that supports your logic?
I haven’t read any like that.

ryecroft said she had an abortion and in other threads, she says she’s pro-choice.
Why do you insist on a view that ryecroft hasn’t claimed fo herself?
It seems so fantastic.

Can you quote ryecroft regarding your claims of her postion?
If you can, please do so.
So far, your opinions are less than helpful.
My opinions regarding this are based on ryecroft’s words, not on my suppositions.
 
catharina said:
ryecroft claimed THIS:
She has said she ended the pregnancy.

That sounds like deliberate action to me.

Why you think othewise is beyond me.
Have you read other posts by ryecroft that supports your logic?
I haven’t read any like that.

ryecroft said she had an abortion and in other threads, she says she’s pro-choice.
Why do you insist on a view that ryecroft hasn’t claimed fo herself?
It seems so fantastic.

Can you quote ryecroft regarding your claims of her postion?
If you can, please do so.
So far, your opinions are less than helpful.
My opinions regarding this are based on ryecroft’s words, not on my suppositions.
Click to expand...
O.k… If Ryecroft has literally said she is pro-choice, then we definitely have to pray for her. Definitely. But I am just trusting that those priests who have studied years on faith and morals knew what they were talking about. They would be downright bad if they told her to have a direct abortion. My degree is in psycholgy, not in theology. I don’t know what priests know about indirect abortions and the conditions that must be met for the principle of double effect to exonerate someone. I’m just being trusting of those two priests. And I’m trusting that she didn’t need to be literally bleeding to death on a table before the doctor could licitly in the eyes of the Church be right in doing what he did. From what I read, her dying was inevitable if the child was not indirectly aborted to spare her life. She went by the doctors and the priests. Did she actually have to be in the process of dying or about to die for her situation to be one of an indirect abortion and licit in the eyes of the church? That’s for the priests. I will have to defer on making any statement on that other than I have no reason to believe those priests were wrong and I am ignorant of what constitutes a licit indirect abortion in the eyes of the Church. I’m not educated on these things like the priests are. I was just trying to state that perhaps the principle of double effect with an indirect abortion was involved.

According to Church teaching, doctors are supposed to give equal care to both mother and child. When that moment comes when he has to choose one over the other, the Church does not put one life over the other - they both are as valuable as the other. Lawfully, both their lives must try to be salvaged. If the mother dies, how can the child be salvaged? The doctor made the decision that the mother would bleed to death. Did she have to literally start bleeding to death on a table for him to choose to save the mother? That’s where the priests and their years of education come in. I myself am not a priest and am not educated on these things. I just believe that perhaps the conditions were met in this woman’s situation for her abortion to be considered indirect and lawful in the eyes of the Church. What do I know? I’m just a Catholic seeking the most charitable answer to a woman’s difficult situation without leading her or any one else in error. I admit my ignorance. But I am trusting. I just trust that direct abortion is evil, but indirect abortion with the right conditions is not because the Church tells me and teaches this. Whether that woman’s abortion was licit in the Church’s eyes is for the priests to know, really. I just threw out there what I perceived in the situation. Sorry if I bothered you so.
 
Ryecroft just sent me a private message with some very enlightening information and I have to defend her. And I am pro-life and orthodox and hate any deviation from sound church teaching.

The only reason she considers herself “pro-choice” is because she thinks that being pro-life means that under no circumstances can a baby’s life be terminated, not even with an indirect abortion where the principle of double effect occurs under lawful circumstances prescribed by the Church. I know that if a woman has a pathology and in order to keep the mother alive her child’s life must be terminated thatthis is licit in the eyes of the Church and is considered an indirect abortion under the principle of double effect. Fr. John Corapi talked about indirect abortions on EWTN and helped me to understand it somewhat. In Ryecroft’s message I believe she told me she was dying from losing too much blood and in order to keep from dying she had to choose to terminate the child’s life in order to live. From what I’ve read (and you can look it up on good Catholic web sites) she was suffering from a life threatening situation (not merely a painful one, not merely an uncomfortable one, but a LIFE THREATENING one. I know if a person’s life is threatened by cancer and the doctor has to remove her uterus where her child is embedded, then the baby’s life could be terminated as a corrolary to save the mother from the cancerous effects AND THIS WOULD NOT BE SEEN AS AN UNLAWFUL DIRECT ABORTION IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH, but rather it would be considered an indirect abortion where the principle of double effect comes into play and COMPLETELY LAWFUL IN THE EYES OF HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.)

Unless some priest or doctor can tell me that bleeding to death is not to be considered in the same category as cancer spreading, I’d prefer not to hear anyone giving Ryecroft any hassle. She’s been through enough.
 
CORRECTION:

Ryecroft didn’t tell me she was bleeding to death, but that her death was immanent for other reasons. Her death was immanent, just the same. Does it make any difference what was killing her? Whether it be from cancer spreading, massive bleeding, or some other cause out of the doctor’s control, her life had to be spared or SHE WOULD DIE and both mother and child would die.
 
Thank you Ready for that excellent information and support for Ryecroft.

I think it’s just terrible the way posters are condemning her on this thread, it’s very nasty and unChristian. It detracts from the pro-life cause greatly by being unreasonable in a very rare situation.

It would be more helpful for the poster Catharina, who apparently feels very strongly about the issue, to better use her time and energy in saving the lives of babies who are being aborted everyday to healthy mothers from healthy wombs. Poor Ryecroft lost her baby whom she loved and now she has fingers pointing at her on what should be a Christian board. That’s disgraceful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top