Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If its a human person, then why doesn't the Church baptise all babies miscarried in hospitals?
Hmmm?
Jim
There is a blessing for that if the parents intended Baptism. We had it done with our son after the miscarriage. We even have a blessed Baptismal Candle for him. So, yeah the fetus is a person. The Church clearly teaches that.
The problem here is also equating fully developed adults as equal to a non-viable fetus. The Church isn't even certain that the fetus has a soul, whereas the adult does.
Actually, I am personalizing it, I'm looking at the two lives not just one, and the fact that only the mother could be saved. You demand the doctors let her die, so who's lacking compasion here?
The doctors didn't want to terminate the pregnancy, but there was no other option left in order to save the mother's life.
You would've preferred that they let the mother die?
That's being pro-life?
Imagine if the doctors did allow the mother to die at St. Joseph's hospital in Arizona? That place would be something other than a hospital by now and they'd be serving time in jail.
Jim
The difference is that David was able to live, despite the illness his mother had.
In the case being debated here, the mother was going to die if nothing was done, so the fetus would die with her.
OH and BTW, my wife gave birth to a baby in her 27th week of pregnancy, we went through the agony of a pregnancy gone wrong.
However, my son was viable, they were able to deliver him by C-section. That's the difference.
Jim
A serious responsibility of a bishop is to insure the purity of teaching in areas of faith and morals (cf. I Timothy 4:16). These teachings must be in conformity with the universal and historic teachings found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and defined by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. The beauty of Catholicism rests in part on its ability to be clear.
Recently there has been high-profile press given to arguments concerning when human life begins. I am concerned about clarity and any misrepresentation of consistent Catholic teaching. My remarks are made in response to numerous questions posed to me by good Catholics in our own Diocese of Lake Charles who are confused by glib citations of patristic authorities, such as St. Augustine, that life begins at some other time than conception.
In response, I would say:
1. St. Augustine, one of our most revered Fathers, lived and wrote almost 1,500 years ago; he did not see the world around him with a scientific perspective as we know it today; as with early writers of this and later periods, his concern was the nature of the immortal soul and the human being; he approached this question primarily from the perspective of theology and philosophy.
2. To answer a question such as when does life begin, science gives us a quite adequate answer; according to one prominent embryology text, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persuad (7th Edition; Publ. Saunders, p. 16), ‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual’’; if he were alive today, St. Augustine would agree, because St. Augustine believed that there was no ‘‘disjunction’’ in what was known by faith and reason (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1981 ed., vol. 5, p. 808, ‘‘St. Augustine’’ on ‘‘Faith and Reason’’ life begins at conception; no doubt St. Augustine would have marveled at a uterine ultrasound and what it reveals about a human in the womb;
3. The teaching that life in the womb is sacred has been consistently taught by the Church from the beginning and is reflected in the opposition of the Church for twenty centuries to abortion; please consult the oldest catechism instruction of the Church, outside the Sacred Scriptures, called the Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles from the First Century A.D.; it reads as follows: ‘‘Do not kill a fetus by abortion, or commit infanticide’’ (Didache, 2:2); also, noted patristic scholars are in agreement that St. Augustine probably knew the Didache and may have used it as a source in writing his own First Catechetical Instruction.
4. To say in some way that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in centuries past taught otherwise than the Church’s consistent teaching on the sacredness of life in the womb or that they were not sure when life began is misleading and erroneous; for this reason, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church states: ‘‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.... Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable’’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2270-2271).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may never directly end the baby's life.
Also, I assume we can baptize the questionably dead, but not the obviously dead. For the obviously dead we hope, that is, we have faith, that they can be granted a baptism of desire.
We really don't know much about when life ends. We know some signs obviously, but then we have people like father Groeschel who was dead in this way for 20 minutes, but is yet alive and quite intelligent. Perhaps what we are allowed to do is a conditional baptism. I could be mistaken.I don't know if in my friends case the priest actually baptized it or just gave it a blessing, or what. My friend called it baptism, she just said that he signed the baby with the sign of the cross.
The difference is that David was able to live, despite the illness his mother had.
I was taught the mother can be treated in hopes that both survive. But there cannot be a deliberate killing of the infant.
In other words, medical care can proceed... a direct abortion cannot.
I cannot speak for the Church, of course, but IMO, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what to decide, when faced with such a terrible dilemma. We can impose a strict morality on ourselves, but we do not have the right to impose it on anyone else to the extent that they end up dying as a result. That may not be murder, but it comes very close to manslaughter, I would say.
The woman - according to the Church - must resolve to fix the ailment.
She may receive medication and or surgery as though she is not pregnant, but must not abort.
If the child dies due to the medical assistance out of necessity then it was in God's hands...
And she is not culpable.
She must not intend to end the child's life, but she must pursue her options to obtain her health.
If its a human person, then why doesn't the Church baptise all babies miscarried in hospitals?
Hmmm?
Jim
Because we do not baptize the dead as a matter of course. We just do not. Now, there are blessings and rites for a miscarriage or still born upon request and they may be offered.
But what is the point of baptizing the dead except to bring comfort to the living.
We sought the blessing for a child lost in miscarriage and had a Baptismal candle blessed to signify our desire to have raised him in the faith. But that was a manifestation of our desire. We also placed my own baptismal outfit in a memory box and it is now his and we attached a piece of it to Lily's baptismal dress to signify that he is just as much a member of our family in Christ as any child we will have who makes it to birth.
But all of that is more a manifestation of our faith an family unity and love for him. It is not to ensure his salvation or life in Christ. Christ will do that at this point in His mercy without Baptism.
So the Church does not Baptize dead people as a matter of reflex practice because Baptism, at that point, is not necessary. A parent may request a rite or blessing that mirrors baptism as a sign of their desire to have raised them in the faith, but it is not the same Sacramentally speaking.
The Church does not baptize and did not baptize Her martyrs who died lacking baptism. Does that mean they are not people?
Seriously...this "they are not people" argument is really off.
Then what is it!!?? YOU tell me, if it is not a human, then what is it?
And when does it become human? at 5 months? 6 months?
You are so outside what the Catholic Church says and teaches, it is not even funny.
READ Davidnic's response to what you said about an 11 week old fetus not being a person.
and I knew a girl years ago who had a still birth, and a priest was there and did baptize the baby...
benedictaoo
It is human in the first stage of human fetal development. However, the Church doesn't Baptise babies miscarried because a soul must be present at Baptism.
I didn't say it isn't human life, it is. However, its not a fully developed human being.
Actually, I'm closer than you care to realise. The debate on this issue incident continues between experts in the Church, I'm not alone in questioning whether the nun should've been excommunicated or not.
I did, but it doesn't change the circumstance of what the mother and fetus were in. Both would die if nothing was done. The fetus could not live if the mother died so its a matter of how pro-life and how much common sense you're willing to apply.
Jim
Yeah, we baptized my grandson who was born dead at 20 weeks. We did, in case there was life that was undetectable and his soul was till present.
We also had a funeral, but not a Mass because he wasn't actually considered Catholic, according to the Church. Our pastor did say prayers at the grave site however.
So what?
It doesn't change the fact that the Church doesn't know when ensoulment takes place and in general only Baptises babies born alive.
Jim
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?