CATHOLICS ONLY: Abortion...

[Raist3001]

Has there been an infallible decree from the Church regarding abortion? There have been Popes and bishops in the long past that have supported abortion in the early stages, or when the life of the mother was in jeapordy. And although they may have been misguided in their teachings, would not an infallible decree today place those Popes and Bishops who did support abortion outside the salvation of the Church?

 

[AMDG]

There have been Popes and bishops in the long past that have supported abortion in the early stages, or when the life of the mother was in jeapordy.

Source please? As far as I know "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment, not a suggestion. And I believe The Didache (teaching of the Twelve Apostles, written between 65 and 80 A.D., highly regarded by the early Church Fathers AND gives insights into early Church practices) addressed abortion in chapter 2:2.

 

[King of the Nations]

Yeah, where are you getting the idea that previous popes and bishops have endorsed any such thing?

Has there been an infallible decree from the Church regarding abortion?

No, because infallible decrees are only issued after a teaching of the Church is significantly contested, which has never been the case with abortion.

Greg

 

[Raist3001]

Let me say first that I am a devout Catholic. And that abortion is contrary to all Catholic teaching. However, it was not always clear when the Church believed a child had a soul. Popes may have fallen into placing credence in Thomistic teachings, but I agree that abortion was not deemed to have been freed from it's distinction as a sin.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

It was Pope Pius IX who reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

whoa... interesting.

 

[AFallingStar]

Isn't the church only infallible in matters of faith? That's what I was told (by my mom). I'm not sure if abortion would be considered a "matter of faith" or not, but I'm just curious...

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I thought in matters of faith and morals... abortion would certainly fall under morals.

However, that's not why I find it interesting. I just find it... interesting. What can I say?

 

[nyj]

Let me say first that I am a devout Catholic. And that abortion is contrary to all Catholic teaching. However, it was not always clear when the Church believed a child had a soul. Popes may have fallen into placing credence in Thomistic teachings, but I agree that abortion was not deemed to have been freed from it's distinction as a sin.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

It was Pope Pius IX who reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

Where are you getting your sources? I think I know, but I want you to confirm it for me. (Google is a wonderful thing).

 

[Qidron]

It was Pope Pius IX who reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

Well, it seems that the infallible decree you were looking for is right there in your post.

 

[TexasCatholic]

Well, it seems that the infallible decree you were looking for is right there in your post.
Q

If the Pope holds a position or something, that does not make it an infallible decree.

-Michael

 

[longhair75]

If the Pope holds a position or something, that does not make it an infallible decree.

-Michael

our friend michael is correct. the holy father issues many statements on many topics. very few are issued "ex cathedra" which marks them as infallible teachings.

 

[Qidron]

our friend michael is correct. the holy father issues many statements on many topics. very few are issued "ex cathedra" which marks them as infallible teachings.

oops, I see...forgive my fallibility. Well, obviously the popes haven't been able to see their way through to declaring abortion murder...thereby fixing the problem. So, moving past Catholic tradition...what does scripture say about it? That'd help out the situation...maybe....probly not....it don't matter none what God says ...you gotta have the pope's current "ex-cathedra" on it.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Wow, that was highly disrespectful. I think for Catholics, they would say that Scripture IS part of "Catholic Tradition" so there is no moving PAST anything but rather directing ones focus on another part of an all encompassing traditon of what they beleive to be the "Pillar and Ground of truth".

 

[Miss Shelby]

So, moving past Catholic tradition...what does scripture say about it?

Scripture has the same 'tainted mark' that you attach to ex cathedra pronouncements, since it's a product of an ancient Catholic (HS guided) council. Why would apply any credibility to Scripture, if you give none to the Catholic Church?


Michelle

 

[Qidron]

Wow, that was highly disrespectful. I think for Catholics, they would say that Scripture IS part of "Catholic Tradition" so there is no moving PAST anything but rather directing ones focus on another part of an all encompassing traditon of what they beleive to be the "Pillar and Ground of truth".

It wasn't meant to be disrespectful, and although Catholics do see scripture as a part of Catholic tradition...should push come to shove...their traditions outweigh scripture...even traditions begun today...so that's why I suggested checking out scripture...as long as current day traditions haven't changed things.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

It wasn't meant to be disrespectful, and although Catholics do see scripture as a part of Catholic tradition...should push come to shove...their traditions outweigh scripture...even traditions begun today...so that's why I suggested checking out scripture...as long as current day traditions haven't changed things.

Oh, i guess I misunderstood this:

That'd help out the situation...maybe....probly not....it don't matter none what God says ...you gotta have the pope's current "ex-cathedra" on it.

as sarcasm

 

[nyj]

Oh, i guess I misunderstood this:

as sarcasm

Several posts were seemingly made with sarcastic intent. You're not the only one to notice it.

 

[Qidron]

Scripture has the same 'tainted mark' that you attach to ex cathedra pronouncements, since it's a product of an ancient Catholic (HS guided) council. Why would apply any credibility to Scripture, if you give none to the Catholic Church?


Michelle

Nope, don't agree. Scripture is a baseline that doesn't change. The Pope can have a word from the Lord...and so can you. But God does not change and neither does His Word...of if papa Pope shares something from God it will not contradict the already canonized (Catholic or protestant) word of God.

So, what does scripture say about abortion?

 

[Qidron]

Oh, i guess I misunderstood this:

as sarcasm

Look, Catholics hold the pope's ex catherdra with more reverance than scripture. So I was sarcastic...I have my reasons. But my question is sincere and focuses on the OP none the less.

If the Popes edicts are not making the abortion/murder issue clear...WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ABOUT ABORTION? It seems perfectly clear to me that abortion is murder...my heart tells me that it is....but I am not sure what the Word says. Do you know?

Instead of smoking up the thread...FOCUS.

Qidron

 

[Xpycoctomos]

You can't expect to attack someone (in their own house) and not ahve someone call you out on that. You are saying things that are clearly against what OBOBers would say the believe. That's like me going into a Baptist room about sola scriptura and saying:

"Look, despite the fact that you all hate gay people, I was wondering how the Bible supports the idea of a loving God?"

And then when someone tries to defend themselves from what was said, I come back and say:

"Hey, don't take the thread off track. My question was about the OP."

Doesn't seem very fair or respectful, but maybe it's just me.