Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Timberrrrrrrr

galljga1 wrote: »

It smacks majorly of let's make this up as we go along.

Well it seems to.have worked well for them for the last 2000 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Why forgive people this year and not next year? Where is the logic there?

No, they can be forgiven any year. What's changed is that up to now, bishops have pronounced that forgiveness; next year priests can do it.

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they can be forgiven any year. What's changed is that up to now, bishops have pronounced that forgiveness; next year priests can do it.

Isn't that how it should be? Why is it that other sins are forgivable via confession but abortion is not?

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

It smacks majorly of let's make this up as we go along.

I can't say it seems odd that the head of an organisation might alter how the organisation operates from time to time. But maybe every leader is 'making it up as they go along'. I guess it's not necessarily the wrong thing to do.....

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I can't say it seems odd that the head of an organisation might alter how the organisation operates from time to time. But maybe every leader is 'making it up as they go along'. I guess it's not necessarily the wrong thing to do.....

Most heads of organisations aren't claiming to be doing the will of an almighty creator (although some act like it).

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And what about all of the poor women who are spending an eternity in "hell" because they refused to forgive women before?

As Peregrinus pointed out; forgiveness was (and is) always available to those who repented, it just required the absolution of a bishop rather than a priest.

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't that how it should be? Why is it that other sins are forgivable via confession but abortion is not?

A priest is given the faculty of absolution either by the canon law or by a grant made by the competent authority (being, usually a bishop, so even prior to the jubliee a bishop might in a given instance grant a priest authority to absolve a penitent of the sin of taking of innocent human life). Absolution for grave sins such as those incurring excommunication is usually reserved to the Pope and Bishops; though I have heard that it's quite common in the US for Bishops to routinely grant authority to local parish priests to absolve the sin of taking of innocent human life in the case of abortion.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Most heads of organisations aren't claiming to be doing the will of an almighty creator (although some act like it).

Luckily this (and most of his recent predecessors) head of this organisation makes a deliberate distinction between what is the will of the almighty creator, and what is an organisational function. So we can immediately know that the will of an almighty creator obviously isn't the wrong thing to do (obviously!), but acts or functions of the organisation might be, and can be happily amended without existential angst.

Huntergonzo

Shame on the catholic church, pushing their pro-choice agenda! ;-)

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't that how it should be? Why is it that other sins are forgivable via confession but abortion is not?

Well, the pope seems to agree with you on this.

Technically, abortion, just like any other sin, is forgiven in confession. The difference is that in some dioceses abortion is one of a (fairly small) class of "reserved sins". In those dioceses, if somebody confesses having had an abortion, the priest is supposed (except in cases of urgency) not to pronounce absolution until he has received permission from the bishop to do so, which means (for the penitent) a return visit to the confessional when the priest has obtained the necessary permission. Next year, that restriction will be lifted.

I'm not quite sure what the point of "reserved sins" is supposed to be; I guess it's to underline the gravity of the sins in question.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

As Peregrinus pointed out; forgiveness was (and is) always available to those who repented, it just required the absolution of a bishop rather than a priest.

A priest is given the faculty of absolution either by the canon law or by a grant made by the competent authority (being, usually a bishop, so even prior to the jubliee a bishop might in a given instance grant a priest authority to absolve a penitent of the sin of taking of innocent human life). Absolution for grave sins such as those incurring excommunication is usually reserved to the Pope and Bishops; though I have heard that it's quite common in the US for Bishops to routinely grant authority to local parish priests to absolve the sin of taking of innocent human life in the case of abortion.

Why is abortion treated differently to other acts which involve the taking of a life?

Timberrrrrrrr

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is abortion treated differently to other acts which involve the taking of a life?

Because only "god" is allowed to kill unborn babies.

Huntergonzo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because only "god" is allowed to kill unborn babies.

Quite frankly God is a psychopathic mass murderer, I don't think he has any issue with the death of anybody or anything much less a child. This makes him even more twisted because he apparently created all of us and then he developed a nasty habit of killing as many of us as he sees fit.

eviltwin

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because only "god" is allowed to kill unborn babies.

I think it's because only women can have abortions which will probably be shouted down as a conspiracy theory but it makes no sense that having an abortion is treated differently to beating someone to death. I'm assuming if I beat someone to death I won't be excommunicated.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is abortion treated differently to other acts which involve the taking of a life?

I've read a number of different arguments for why it is singled out for instructional censure but none is stated in Canon Law. Some Christians suggest it's because it might not be immediately apparent that it is the same as killing a born person and violates the 5th Commandment in the same way, and therefore it is necessary to draw attention to the fact.
Others say that it's because the killing of the unborn is a particularly heinous form of killing, which from a point of view would have been true for the centuries the Catholic Church taught that babies could not go to Heaven unless they were christened; not only ending a life but denying it heaven for eternity.
But I don't know of a Ponitifical pronouncement that would settle the why of it one way or another.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because only "god" is allowed to kill unborn babies.

Surely "god" is allowed to kill anyone? But, to be fair, the 5th Commandment clearly forbids the killing/murder of anyone. It's certainly a sin, just not one the Church thinks is amenable to excommunication.

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it's because only women can have abortions which will probably be shouted down as a conspiracy theory but it makes no sense that having an abortion is treated differently to beating someone to death. I'm assuming if I beat someone to death I won't be excommunicated.

But those who procure a completed abortion (and potentially their accomplices), not those who have them (though of course those who have them are often amongst those who procure them) are to be excommunicated (with quite a lot of exceptions); that includes both men and women.
As for beating someone to death; it depends on who. Excommunication is in store for those who take such action against certain members of the clergy, if I recall correctly. You may not even have to beat them all the way to death to incur it.

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is abortion treated differently to other acts which involve the taking of a life?

At a guess, because taking a life in other circumstances is already widely recognised as wrong, as can be seen in e.g. the way it's treated in civil law. Whereas Catholicism is countercultural in its insistence on the wrongness of abortion, which is fairly widely condoned in modern societies. Hence the need to call attention to it with a gesture such as this.

A spot of googling suggests that the reserved sins are generally things that are not condemned on punished in civil law, either because they are particularly churchy things (a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional commits a reserved sin, a bishop ordaining a priest without approval, desecrating the eucharist) or because they are socially acceptable (abortion).

volchitsa

galljga1 wrote: »

It smacks majorly of let's make this up as we go along.

Yes, and more significantly I suspect, it's an implicit acknowledgment of the church's increasing loss of authority over its own members.

They long ago cut their losses - albeit unofficially - on artificial contraception, and now they're having to concede ground on abortion, which was the big taboo, the clearcut battle they thought they could win hearts and minds over.

"Retreat and regroup" can have its merits as a strategy, but in the hands of propagandists it's a mere euphemism. And Frankie is nothing if not a PR man. I think this is spin, nothing more. Abortion is destined to quietly become just another "sin" like divorce and contraception. Which is as it should be - a personal matter for those who actually believe in all that.

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it's because only women can have abortions which will probably be shouted down as a conspiracy theory . . .

Quite a number of the reserved sins can only be committed by men (because they can only be committed by clerics) so it's not generally an anti-woman thing. Plus, in relation to abortion the reserved sin is procuring an abortion, which embraces not just a woman seeking an abortion, but anyone paying for an abortion or anyone administering an abortion. Obviously the latter two groups could be either men or women.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

At a guess, because taking a life in other circumstances is already widely recognised as wrong, as can be seen in e.g. the way it's treated in civil law. Whereas Catholicism is countercultural in its insistence on the wrongness of abortion, which is fairly widely condoned in modern societies. Hence the need to call attention to it with a gesture such as this.

A spot of googling suggests that the reserved sins are generally things that are not condemned on punished in civil law, either because they are particularly churchy things (a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional commits a reserved sin, a bishop ordaining a priest without approval, desecrating the eucharist) or because they are socially acceptable (abortion).

Can we logically suggest that given the normalisation of homosexuality and the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships within modern society, that the Catholic Church should now add homosexual acts to its list of reserved sins in order to stay abreast of the situation?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we logically suggest that given the normalisation of homosexuality and the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships within modern society, that the Catholic Church should now add homosexual acts to its list of reserved sins in order to stay abreast of the situation?

Fair point. There are lots of socially acceptable sexual sins already, and none of them are reserved sins - remarriage after divorce, pre-marital sex, legal sex work and more besides. So I don't see homosexual acts being added to the reserved sins list any time soon.

Which suggests that the rationale for reserving a sin isn't just that it's socially or legally accepted. Abortion makes the grade, perhaps, because it involves killing. Sexual sins generally don't.

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Quite a number of the reserved sins can only be committed by men (because they can only be committed by clerics) so it's not generally an anti-woman thing. Plus, in relation to abortion the reserved sin is procuring an abortion, which embraces not just a woman seeking an abortion, but anyone paying for an abortion or anyone administering an abortion. Obviously the latter two groups could be either men or women.

But there is rarely any mention of the partners of these women when discussing the issue. Or of the medical staff who carry it out. And how do you define procurement? If you give a woman the contact details of a clinic for example are you excommunicated? If you go to a pro choice March or support a pro choice charity are you guilty then.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair point. There are lots of socially acceptable sexual sins already, and none of them are reserved sins - remarriage after divorce, pre-marital sex, legal sex work and more besides. So I don't see homosexual acts being added to the reserved sins list any time soon.

Which suggests that the rationale for reserving a sin isn't just that it's socially or legally accepted. Abortion makes the grade, perhaps, because it involves killing. Sexual sins generally don't.

I'm not sure that killing is the correct term here.

Can you clarify?

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

But there is rarely any mention of the partners of these women when discussing the issue. Or of the medical staff who carry it out.

Which may say something about the public discourse about this issue. But, lets face it, this is one public discourse which the Catholic church is certainly not in control of.

In any event, where reserved sins are concerned, what matters is not what comes up in public discussion, but what comes up in the privacy of the confessional. A man confessing that he performed abortions would certainly come up against the issue of this being a reserved sin.

eviltwin wrote: »

And how do you define procurement? If you give a woman the contact details of a clinic for example are you excommunicated? If you go to a pro choice March or support a pro choice charity are you guilty then.

Simply supporting a pro-choice political position is not procuring an abortion, any more than taking the view that the law should not criminalise adultery is committing adultery. You'd have to be fairly closely involved in having facilitated a particular abortion, typically by paying for it or by making practical arrangements for it, before you'd run up against the "reserved sin" issue.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Simply supporting a pro-choice political position is not procuring an abortion, any more than taking the view that the law should not criminalise adultery is committing adultery. You'd have to be fairly closely involved in having facilitated a particular abortion, typically by paying for it or by making practical arrangements for it, before you'd run up against the "reserved sin" issue.

What about voting to make it available? Shouldn't that logically be included as facilitation?

Gumbi

volchitsa wrote: »

What about voting to make it available? Shouldn't that logically be included as facilitation?

Facilitating is not the same as supporting.

If I vote to legalise weed, it doesn't mean I would recommend people do it. I might just think that adults are grown up enough to make theit own decisions about what they put into their bodies.

Timberrrrrrrr

Gumbi wrote: »

Facilitating is not the same as supporting.

If I vote to legalise weed, it doesn't mean I would recommend people do it. I might just think that adults are grown up enough to make theit own decisions about what they put into their bodies.

But women are not grown up.enough to decide what they have in their bodies?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, and more significantly I suspect, it's an implicit acknowledgment of the church's increasing loss of authority over its own members. They long ago cut their losses - albeit unofficially - on artificial contraception, and now they're having to concede ground on abortion, which was the big taboo, the clearcut battle they thought they could win hearts and minds over. "Retreat and regroup" can have its merits as a strategy, but in the hands of propagandists it's a mere euphemism. And Frankie is nothing if not a PR man. I think this is spin, nothing more. Abortion is destined to quietly become just another "sin" like divorce and contraception. Which is as it should be - a personal matter for those who actually believe in all that.

I can't see any reason to actually think that's true though; the Church hasn't altered its position on abortion in the slightest, never mind conceded any ground (and I'm not convinced that was ever the big taboo; surely the big taboos are the ones where absoultion is reserved to the Holy See?). It's made it easier to receive absolution for committing the sin, which can only mean more people will receive absolution. That's a win for the Church no matter how you look at it; more absolutions makes for more souls in heaven.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

But there is rarely any mention of the partners of these women when discussing the issue. Or of the medical staff who carry it out. And how do you define procurement? If you give a woman the contact details of a clinic for example are you excommunicated? If you go to a pro choice March or support a pro choice charity are you guilty then.

I think there is rarely any mention of it because the discussion is generally framed in terms of how abortion affects women who have abortions, rather than how it affects others.
EWTN explains it like this:
Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.
An abortion is defined as "the killing of the foetus, in whatever way or at whatever time from the moment of conception" (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, published in the "Acts of the Apostolic See" vol. 80 (1988), 1818). This definition applies to any means, including drugs, by which a human being present in the woman is killed. Thus, once a woman knows she is pregnant the intentional killing of the new life within her is not only murder but an excommunicable offense. A woman who only thinks she might be pregnant has a grave responsibility to find out and to protect the possible life within. Any action to end a "possible" pregnancy while probably not an excommunicable offense would be callous disregard for life and gravely sinful.
Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel and encouragement made it morally possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible (financially, driving to the clinic etc.).

A dictionary definition of procure is "to get (something) by some action or effort", so I would suggest anyone who makes a specific effort to bring about a specific abortion is subject to the censure (and excluded from the censure by the exclusions). I don't think advocating abortion in general, and less so advocating choice in general could be construed as procuring abortion, though I imagine you could easily find a hard core Catholic to disagree with me. Probably more difficult to find a Catholic Ordinary who would disagree with me, though I'm sure at least a few exist.

volchitsa wrote: »

What about voting to make it available? Shouldn't that logically be included as facilitation?

I doubt it could be construed as specifically facilitating a particular abortion. Again I think you'd be hard put to find anyone in the Magisterium who'd say voting for abortion is sanctionable under that particular Canon Law, though you might find one or two.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure that killing is the correct term here.

Can you clarify?

Well, I don't want this discussion to degenerate into the usual sterile shouting match. But there can be no doubt that in an abortion something dies, and the purpose of having an abortion is to bring that death about. Whether that which dies is a human person or not, we need not discuss. The issue here is not whether you or I think abortion is murder, but whether there is a reason why the Catholic church would treat abortion as a graver matter than adultery or other sexual sins. And, given Catholic beliefs, it's clearly not irrational to make that distinction of gravity.

Abortion does involve the extinction of life in an organism. The importance anyone attaches to that depends on the value they attribute to the organism.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure that killing is the correct term here.
Can you clarify?

The Didache (which preceded Canon Law) states "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born" or, if you like, "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born", or "thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born", it depends on the translation.
Either way, from early on it's clear the Church considered abortion to be a form of killing and a violation of the 5th Commandment, so killing is most certainly the correct term in the context. I don't think there's all that many people even in the pro choice camp who would say it's not killing; it's pretty clear something dies as a result, regardless of how you view that something.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

The Didache (which preceded Canon Law) states "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born" or, if you like, "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born", or "thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born", it depends on the translation.
Either way, from early on it's clear the Church considered abortion to be a form of killing and a violation of the 5th Commandment, so killing is most certainly the correct term in the context. I don't think there's all that many people even in the pro choice camp who would say it's not killing; it's pretty clear something dies as a result, regardless of how you view that something.

If I masterbate this evening then a bunch of cells will die, if I sneeze hard then a bunch of calls will die, if I blow my nose then a bunch of cells will die. Does that make me a killer?