Papal Contradictions on Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter return2truth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Daniel Marsh:
So, in short the popes likely were discussing when the body was ensouled and were not endorsing abortion as the norm.

But, did they allow abortions? And, if so, for what reasons?
Click to expand...
see post #14
 
Please have someone in charge edit my post 18 of this thread in the edit reason line above. I did not realize the purpose of the edit is shown.
 
40.png
byHisGrace:
Mike,
I’m really curious as to the intent of your post. Are you suggesting it might be true and the Church is hiding something?
Click to expand...
No, I suspect it’s not true. However, are we 100% sure it’s not true? Why would somebody put that out, if it could be so easily refuted? My point is, if there is any truth to it, it would not be advertised as such on a catholic website.
 
40.png
buffalo:
see post #14
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was asking for clarification on number 13 above.

Abortion and the Early Church, by Michael Gorman

Does Gorman’s book cover the material of ensoulment viewpoints throughout the history of the church?
 
40.png
buffalo:
The Church is rooted in Truth. If it was true it would be part of our doctrine. And if discussions took place to answer particular concerns by any Pope and they were not pronounced then the claim is bogus. Many things are discussed and documented and not implemented.
Click to expand...
No argument. Official doctrine is that all abortion, no matter when it is accomplished, is evil. However, it could also be true (assuming the original post has any truth to it) that some Popes at one time, felt abortions before 40 days was not murder, it just didn’t become official doctrine.
 
Mathew George:
Blindly defending that no such thing happened, and that the whole issue is a figment of the critics’ imagination, is not the right approach in my opinion.

Having said this, this issue doesn’t ‘endanger’ Catholic Church’s dogma on Infallibility in any way. The opinion expressed by the then Popes were merely their judgment based on scholastic views prevalent at those times. None was put forth as a definitive teaching.
Click to expand...
I agree. 👍
 
A good article worth reading is,
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus (“On Marriage and Concupiscence”), 1.17.
“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother … Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.”
Click to expand...
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/ensoulment-fathers1.htm

Has anyone read this book, ???

A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion.(Book Review)
By Daniel A. Dombrowski and Robert Deltete. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. 158 pp.

Basically, the article seperates the issues of ensoulment and abortion.
 
Could it be possible that this whole debate is not over whether abortion prior to or after 40 days warrants excommunication?

In other words, the popes were not disagreeing on whether the action was evil or not. They were disagreeing over the penalty with which it should be enforced.

The reason I thought of this is because the ensoulment shouldn’t matter to the Church. The point of ensoulment simply divides the act from one of contraception and one of abortion. Both intrinsically evil, but bearing different degrees of penalty.
 
Great point Black Jaque, it would be interresting to view each of their so-called primary sources. Am I the only one who noticed that they did not give exact reference to the primary souce, so one could look those documents up? They simply gave their opinion of what they think those documents say, rather then give lengthy quotes with proper references.
 
Has anyone been able to find a link to Effraenatam in English? I’ve had no success so far but would like to read this original text to see exactly what it did say.
 
Black Jaque,
Could it be possible that this whole debate is not over whether abortion prior to or after 40 days warrants excommunication?
Click to expand...
In other words, the popes were not disagreeing on whether the action was evil or not. They were disagreeing over the penalty with which it should be enforced.
Click to expand...
The reason I thought of this is because the ensoulment shouldn’t matter to the Church. The point of ensoulment simply divides the act from one of contraception and one of abortion. Both intrinsically evil, but bearing different degrees of penalty.
Click to expand...
I think you’re close to the truth here, but still not entirely correct.

The same knowledge of biology which makes the whole “ensoulment” issue irrelevent (since we know that the newly conceived child is “quickened” from the moment of conception, and is 100% human), is one which also makes the confusion in certain Church Fathers between contraception and abortion irrelevent - namely, the male seed is not the sole contributor to conception, and that it is essentially different than a newly conceived fetus. Hence, Patristic condemnations of what we’d call “contraceptive practices”, which were based upon a pre-scientific knowledge of human reproduction, simply cannot be held up as a standard for moral judgements.

Hence if one is going to insist that “contraception” is immoral, they will have to do so on an entirely different basis. And that is what the RCC has tried to do, though for many of us, unconvincingly (“theology of the body”, etc.) Or we can simply have the admission that contraception which is not abortifacient, is not in itself immoral or “unnatural”.
 
40.png
mikew262:
If true, you probably wouldn’t find it on a catholic website. It would be extremely damaging and embarrassing to the Church.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that the Church has come to a better understanding of this subject through modern medicine and biology. It’s not damaging at all, quite the contrary, it shows the Church is a living church made of humans who are trying to understand God as time goes on; they just don’t do it with perfection all the time. Thankfully the Church can, and does, change.
 
Palamite,

I don’t quite understand your point. The Church sees a difference between contraception and abortion. From the looks of it, she made the distinction before she had any scientific knowlege of how a human is conceived.

And the distinction back then, remains the same as it is today - contraception is frustrating the sexual act to prevent pregnancy, and abortion is the murder of a human soul.
 
It only took me 15 seconds, did you google?
The Apostolic Constitution “Effraenatam” of Pope Sixtus V against abortionists
Click to expand...
The Apostolic Constitution “Effraenatam” of Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) against abortionists, was translated from Latin into English by Padre Antonio Trimakas of Mexico City, a multi-lingual, prolife priest. The English translation includes the essentials of the Latin and is presented with some parenthetical commentary.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Here is the English translation of "Effraenatam", somewhat abbreviated and with some parenthetical commentary:
Click to expand...
iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Effraenatam+In+English

google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Effraenatam+
 
As if cafeteria catholics (sic) were not enough, now we have CSI catholics?
 
40.png
tjmiller:
As if cafeteria catholics (sic) were not enough, now we have CSI catholics?
Click to expand...
I guess that would be better than Miami Vice Chritistians 🙂
 
I didn’t read through all the posts, but it should be noted that Papal Statements are only infallible when they are stated in ex cathedra. I actually heard on Catholic radio a couple of months ago that there have only been two such statements made on the chair of Peter and those deal with Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her assumption into Heaven.

Unfortunately, some people who are aware of this turn this around to meaning that only dogmatic teachings and those two infallible statements are what is required of Catholic believe and that everything else is open to change so long as such teachings are not canonized.

The truth of the matter is though that the Church is our guide. She has always condemned abortion. What has been in question for centuries is when does the child exist, when does the child become alive? It has gone back and forth because not much was known biologically.

The punishments for abortion can change anytime. For instance, if we lived in a society that condemned abortion and where abortion was rare, there would be no need for an automatic excommunication of those who get abortions. Excommunication is a teaching function of the Church. It is not a thing of “that is the most serious offense a person can do.” The seriousness of the offense stays the same, but the Church’s need for such drastic teaching measures changes with time.

We have to emphasis that the Church is the teaching authority containing the fullness of truth. Contradicting and condemning her moral teachings because we think that someday they will change is like refusing to learn the math of today because one day some brilliant person might find a better equation that is more accurate of figuring something out. Any change that comes will merely be a clarification of what we already know and it’ll be based on what the Church already teaches, not on the direction society goes in and the feelings of individuals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top