 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2007 11:56 pm |
|
In a lecture on the history of abortion in medical school today, it was noted that the Catholic church for quite awhile allowed abortion up to the point of "quickening" of the fetus.
Surprised by this, I did a quick google search and turned up things such as this:
"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.
"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)."
I don't have access to the primary sources, and granted, this was taken from a site that appears to be no friend of the Catholic church.
I found this response from EWTN (http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum10&recnu=5&number=450638):
"The Church has, from the moral perspective, always condemned the act of abortion as an act of direct killing. That has never changed.
"The various dictums that have been issued over the centuries regarding punishment for the crime address what is scientifically KNOWN at a specific time in history. The matter was totally cleared up in 1930 when Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical, CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE..."
I know the Church's teaching is that it never changes its official teaching in faith and morals. I guess I don't find EWTN's answer satisfying. Even today we cannot know scientifically when ensoulment occurs; we take it on faith that it occurs at conception.
Supposing that the facts above are correct, it seems clear (at the least) that the church has not always taught that genuine human life begins at conception. And it seems clear that the church has not always taught that the terminating of a pregnancy in (approximately) the first trimester is as serious a sin as in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.
Please don't get me wrong: I don't write this to stir up debate or as someone hostile to the Catholic church. My question is: is it ok to say that it appears the church has changed its teaching in this matter? This is what it really seems to me. I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me out.
Thanks,
David
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 12:21 am |
|
Even today we cannot know scientifically when ensoulment occurs; we take it on faith that it occurs at conception.
Ensoulment does not depend on our observation of the event. Wherever there is human life, the soul exists as well as the body, because theologically it is the soul that gives life to the body. Separation of body and soul is the event we call death. Science has determined that the moment of conception is when bodily life begins; therefore, it follows that ensoulment takes place at conception.
It also follows that EWTN’s explanation of the historical situation is correct.
David
|
|
|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 12:51 am |
|
Thanks for the reply.
Right. I totally agree that ensoulment does not depend on our observation of it. Perhaps I should have been more precise. What I meant to convey was that science cannot empirically demonstrate ensoulment, but yes, science can demonstrate when life begins.
Would it be fair to say this?:
On the one hand, the church has always condemned what it perceived to be abortion--the taking of human life; but on the other hand the church has grown in its understanding of the limits of human life, and in consequence has broadened the limits of abortion. So the church previously (it seems) permitted abortion only because it did not realize that it was so.
Could one say in summary that the church's moral teaching on abortion has not changed, but its application of that teaching to relevant situations of life has progressively unfolded?
Just thinking out loud here, and trying to fill in the gaps of EWTN together with your answer.
Thanks,
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5310 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 01:04 am |
|
akatalutos wrote: "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.
"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)."
I could not find any reliable Catholic information that would verify either of these claims. The earliest reference I could find to abortion (which was called "child murder") was in the Didache, written in 70-150 AD. It also condemned contraception.
The information I found on Pope Sixtus V's bull showed that it condemned the forced ejection of the fetus prior to 180 days gestation as abortion. After that point, it was considered murder. There was a distinction between early and late abortion, but only in the severity of the crime.
You can read the references I found. The first comes from a web site of a local religious supply house in my town that is reliably orthodox, reposting a 1995 statement from Archbishop Julian Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. You'll find it here.
The next is from the Priests for Life web site, which reposted a pastoral from the then bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, Bishop Rene Gracida, issued 1990. You'll find it here.
Here's an article from This Rock magazine (published by Catholic Answers) on the Fathers' teachings on abortion.
In short, I couldn't find a single reliably Catholic web site that verified these claims. Nor could I find the text of the bull of Sixtus V anywhere on the web. (It is hard to find papal documents that old of any type.)
I know the Church's teaching is that it never changes its official teaching in faith and morals.
That's actually not quite correct. There is teaching, doctrine and dogma.
Dogma is officially declared as infallible, to be believed by all Christians. It is restricted to doctrinal pronouncements of councils promulgated by the Pope, and to ex cathedra statements of doctrine declared infallibly by the Pope on his own authority. Examples of dogma include the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the Sacraments, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.
Doctrine is officially proclaimed by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It is consistently taught and held by the Universal Church in union with the Holy Father. It may not be held in quite as high esteem as dogma, but it is no less binding. The Canon of Scripture would be a good example of Doctrine that was elevated to Dogma at the Council of Trent. The Church's teachings on contraception would fall under the category of doctrine.
Teachings are matters that are not infallible, and may indeed change in focus if not in fact while remaining consistent with doctrine and dogma. For example, the Church's doctrine on the death penalty says that society has the right to execute criminals; the teaching says that execution should not be used in today's society, where other remedies are available. The teaching does not rescind the doctrine; it refines it in today's society. The doctrine has not changed; the teaching has. (Please, I do not want to get into the morality of the death penalty here. That's not the point of this post.)
Another example of the difference between doctrine and teaching is the concept of Just War. Church doctrine says that governments have the right to go to war under certain circumstances, and legitimate government has the right to determine whether those conditions exist. Church teaching tells us that those conditions did not exist when the United States attacked Iraq. However, the teaching does not override the doctrine. The United States had the right to go to war if the nation decided it was justified, even though the Church advised that it was not. (Please, I do not want to get into an argument of whether the war was/is justified. That's not the point of this post!)
The Church has taught in the past that slavery was permitted, that a husband had the right to rape his wife, that those who committed suicide could not have a funeral service in a Catholic church, that the dead could not be cremated. All of these teachings have been changed in the light of changes in society. However, no doctrine or dogma has ever been changed.
As to whether the Church has changed its teaching on the matter of abortion, I can only say I don't think so. I could find no evidence that the Church has ever found the direct ending of pregnancy as anything other than a grave moral evil, and sources I have found and cited above seem to indicate that it has not.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 01:41 am |
|
Could one say in summary that the church's moral teaching on abortion has not changed, but its application of that teaching to relevant situations of life has progressively unfolded?
Yes. Because science’s understanding of the process of procreation and quickening has progressed, so also the Church’s understanding of how to apply its moral teaching has progressed. This squares with EWTN’s statement. And if you read St. Augustine’s theological speculation on the morality of abortion (I believe it is in his City of God), you will see precisely this distinction. You will also see that under no circumstances was Augustine ready to admit that abortion is morally acceptable; his argument is always, “IF it is true, as some say, that the fetus is not quickened until so many days after conception, THEN.…”
A similar situation arises with the question of usury. Usury — as it was understood in ancient times — is still immoral. But our understanding and practice of economics has changed radically, allowing an entirely different interpretation of what constitutes injustice in the charging of interest. So the doctrine has not changed, but its application has because the economic conditions in our culture are significantly different than they were in ancient times.
Rick points out that there are several levels of authority in Catholic doctrine. But as you can see, I do not think one has to appeal to this to resolve your question.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5310 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 02:12 am |
|
One of the things we learned in studying the development of doctrine was the so-called "little man" theory.
According to this belief, the male seed was complete, and the woman provided the fertile ground upon which the seed was sown. The seed grew like a plant's seed, drawing sustenance from the womb.
Like a plant's seed is a "little plant", the male sperm would be considered a "little man". David will probably know better than me, but I think people like Plato and possibly some of the Jewish and early Christian writers wrote from this perspective. Spilling the seed, as in masturbation, was actually "killing" the little men.
I point this out to show just how different our understanding of reproduction is today from what it was only a few hundred years ago. There was no thought of genetics, DNA, chromosomes, dominant and recessive genes, etc. They probably believed if a child looked like its mother, it was because a male ancestor bore the same resemblance, and it was just a coincidence that the mother looked like that.
So if "quickening" was the change from "seed" to "person", it would make sense that the judgment of the crime would change at that point. If the soul was equated with the force of life, it would make sense that ensoulment would be considered to take place at that point. But it was wrong.
We know now that a unique creation with unique DNA exists from the moment egg and sperm unite. The sperm does not represent a "little man;" the egg and sperm united create a unique life. At what point does the unique "person" come into existence? DNA tells us that the embryo is not the same genetic material as the mother or the father; it is unique. And our Church tells us now with its more complete understanding of reproduction that from the moment that unique creation comes into existence, it is a separate individual that has life and an immortal soul, and to deliberately and directly end that life is a grave evil.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 08:39 am |
|
God's peace. CajunRick wrote: "They probably believed if a child looked like its mother, it was because a male ancestor bore the same resemblance, and it was just a coincidence that the mother looked like that."
I think rather that this view saw the "little man" as being an unfinished being, subject to influences from the mother's womb while in development. Otherwise, as in the union of a white man and a black woman, it would be quite difficult to explain the obviously coffee-colored baby!
When Leeuwenhoek discovered the sperm cell in the 1600's, it was dubbed the spermatozoan or "sperm animal." It was thought to be an independent creature that lived in human semen as paramecia live in pond water. Only later was it linked directly to reproduction. Even then, some people actually claimed to see the "little man" inside the sperm with the crude microscopes of the day and went on to try to explain how we are all "in Adam" by this. This notion led to the curious logical consequence that the entire race was present, like nested Chinese boxes, inside the sperm cell and that humanity would end when the last "little man" was let out of its box.
We tend to think that people and theologians have always seen the natural world much as we do today. However, it was only in 1827--a mere 180 years ago--that Baer discovered the mammalian egg! It is amazing is how little theology has had to change to "fit" our modern scientific understanding. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 11:30 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: According to this belief, the male seed was complete, and the woman provided the fertile ground upon which the seed was sown. The seed grew like a plant's seed, drawing sustenance from the womb.
This is correct. That is why women who didn't have babies were referred to as "barren," as the lack of children under this system of thought was always the woman's fault. I have heard some Christians use this term "barren" today and it just fries me!
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 141 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 07:30 pm |
|
Thank you for raising this question. As a Jewish believer in Jesus, I am perplexed by how to deal with halakhot in general. In case you are not familiar with this Jewish concept, I'll share a few thoughts on it and why it applies to Catholic Teaching Authority.
Judaism recognizes that all the teaching of God's Word was not made explicit in the Torah. Therefore, various rabbis through history have been involved in discussions very much like those on this website. These rabbinic discussions as to what applications of Scripture may be made to current issues and what interpretations are valid are the meat of the Talmud and Midrashim.
The rabbis used principles of Scriptural intepretation, especially those attributed to rabbis Hillel and Ishmael to give some discipline to the process. These principles are similar in many respects to those used by the Protestant reformers. The Talmud encourages the reader to ask questions of these decisions and records varying rabbinical opinions, usually followed by an official resolution.
I think this process is similar to the varying contributions of several Popes to the subject of abortion which you mentioned in your post.
If dissent and development within interpretation are not allowed, then there is no way to adapt the text of Scripture to new conditions. On the other hand, how can we accept the decision of any of these Popes as "final"?
There seems to be a conflict between the necessity of the development of interpretation and its status as "absolute" and "authoritative."
As a Messianic Jew, I face the issue of what halakhot (Rabbinical interpretive rulings on faith and practice) I should follow? Rabbi Hillel produced a halakah which justified the charging of interest between one Jew and another--something prohibited in Torah. Can we follow this halakah? Jesus himself ruled that we should lend to the poor without expecting anything in return--presumably, this means not even the principal would be returned.
Rabbinic Judaism has taken a polemical position (which is also found in the Talmud itself) against the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. Clearly, I don't believe that I can be bound by this.
Yet the Oral Law is an essential part of the Judaism which Jesus accepted and inherited. Jesus told us that we were to obey the Pharisees when they sat on the seat of Moses. That we should do what they say, not what they do.
It seems to me that there is a continuing need for authoritative "halakah" within the Christian faith. Is this what is happening within the Magisterium and Papal authorities? In effect, a lot of Protestants look to the theologies of Luther and Calvin in a similar way.
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:09 pm |
|
I believe, Henry, that one should view the halakhot as similar to disputations among theologians, not as a magisterial position that can never change. So the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is different from what you understand.
Judaism recognizes that all the teaching of God's Word was not made explicit in the Torah.
Catholic belief is similar.
The rabbis used principles of Scriptural intepretation…. These principles are similar in many respects to those used by the Protestant reformers.
Actually, my observation (I’ve read only a small amount of halakhah) is that Jewish methods of scriptural interpretation are closer to the traditional Catholic approach than to that of mainline Protestants. They prefer analogues and allegories to manuscript and linguistic analysis. This sounds more like Origen and Chrysostom than Lightfoot and Spurgeon.
If dissent and development within interpretation are not allowed, then there is no way to adapt the text of Scripture to new conditions. On the other hand, how can we accept the decision of any of these Popes as "final"?
Actually, I had explained how this is possible toward the beginning of the thread. The question is not of changing the doctrine but of understanding it in light of a new understanding of the physical conditions to which it applies. I gave the example of the question of usury and applied it to early and late theological and magisterial statements on abortion.
Jesus himself ruled that we should lend to the poor without expecting anything in return--presumably, this means not even the principal would be returned.
Then you are speaking of a gift, not a loan. Since Jesus (Luke 6:35) used the word “lend,” I don’t think this is a proper understanding of the literal meaning. But I would accept the idea that he was speaking spiritually. In this sense, the lender would be going beyond a business deal and justice to the practice of mercy and charity. And this stands well with Jesus’ summary in verse 36, don’t you think?
Rabbinic Judaism has taken a polemical position (which is also found in the Talmud itself) against the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. Clearly, I don't believe that I can be bound by this.
Perhaps God has given us a means of judging in the fact that he allowed Jerusalem and the Temple to be destroyed in 70 AD. Moreover, a short time later the Palestinian Rabbis also established a Hebrew only canon of scripture, rejecting the Greek writings included in the Septuagint, which was accepted by both the Diaspora and the Christians.
Yet the Oral Law is an essential part of the Judaism which Jesus accepted and inherited. Jesus told us that we were to obey the Pharisees when they sat on the seat of Moses. That we should do what they say, not what they do.
True. Yet Jesus was speaking to Jews. As yet there were no Christians, since the Church was established after his death and resurrection.
It seems to me that there is a continuing need for authoritative "halakah" within the Christian faith. Is this what is happening within the Magisterium and Papal authorities?
The continuing need, as I see it, is being supplied by the study of theology. These, however, are the scholars, not the Magisterium. The Magisterium is composed of bishops, some of whom may be scholars. In the Catholic Church, it is the bishops — the chief priests, as it were — who have the authority, not the scholars. They consult with the scholars, but they alone make the decisions that will remain for posterity.
A lot of Protestants look to the theologies of Luther and Calvin in a similar way.
In this sense, I believe you are right. The early reformers stand with many of the mainline Protestants in much the same way as the ancient rabbis stand with modern Jews.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:13 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: The Church has taught in the past that slavery was permitted, that a husband had the right to rape his wife, that those who committed suicide could not have a funeral service in a Catholic church, that the dead could not be cremated. All of these teachings have been changed in the light of changes in society. However, no doctrine or dogma has ever been changed.
I thought though that the church was infaliible on tachings of faith and morals...how could they then therfore change stances on a moral issue...and as for it being ok for a man to rape his wife...well what changes in society went from making this ok to not ok. Seems like something that the church was just wrong about. I mean, I can't see any conditions of culture that could make such a barbaric act ok. Seems more like the result of a phallocentric society and the church going along with it.
So if the church is infallible on matters of faith and morals then how did they get away with being wrong about these issues? Certainly you would not argue it really went from being right to wrong to rape your wife?
Is it just that these statements were never necessarily official teaching so much as culturally what was accepted?
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 176 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 3rd, 2007 11:43 pm |
|
Brian -
Rick wrote -
The Church has taught in the past that slavery was permitted, that a husband had the right to rape his wife, that those who committed suicide could not have a funeral service in a Catholic church, that the dead could not be cremated. All of these teachings have been changed in the light of changes in society. However, no doctrine or dogma has ever been changed.
Remember Brian, assertions by anyone you read here stating what official Church teaching is, should be accompanied by direct references / quotes from Church documents, as most of the posts on this thread were. There's enough misconceptions around without stating something for dramatic effect without the benefit of context with backround explanation in official documents.
If you could Rick, for now, for the benefit of Brian and other newbies, try to list where the references to these statements are located in Church documents, show the references and full quotes in context.
Thanks.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5310 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 12:05 am |
|
brian wrote: Is it just that these statements were never necessarily official teaching so much as culturally what was accepted?
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Many things have been taught in the name of the Church that were never "officially" part of Church teaching. Of the examples I cited, the only ones I know were officially part of Church liturgy was that those who committed suicide could not have a Catholic funeral, and that bodies could not be cremated. The former changed because of new understandings in the field of psychology; the latter because the original reason for the ban (the denial of the resurrection of the body) is not true in Western society. The ban may still be in place in other cultures. But these were disciplines, not doctrines, and the Church was within her right to change them, just as she was within her right to change the liturgy of the mass from Latin to English.
I was taught in the 50's that only Catholics could go to heaven. That was in a Catholic school by Catholic nuns. It was a misunderstanding of Church doctrine. Just a few years ago I heard a catechist tell an RCIA class that only those who pray the rosary daily can go to heaven. That is certainly not an official teaching of the Church. A catechist once told my daughter in class that confession wasn't necessary any more. All those things were taught in the name of the Church but they were wrong.
The Church has never changed a doctrine or dogma, but teachings do change based on the time and culture.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 141 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 11:31 am |
|
Dear David,
Thanks for your helpful responses to my many questions! You have given me a lot to think about and to digest. I need to take a break for a few days to handle some daily life stuff. I may not be on the network for a while. Just wanted you to know that I have had a very positive experience here. 
Back soon.
Thanks!
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 01:33 pm |
|
A nice piece that addresses this thread's original question:
Part I:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3361
Part II:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3362
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 05:10 pm |
|
Please don't get me wrong: I don't write this to stir up debate or as someone hostile to the Catholic church. My question is: is it ok to say that it appears the church has changed its teaching in this matter?
I would say, "no". The gist of the moral teaching is that a human being may not be killed in the womb. The Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
The science of the matter has changed. At one time, there was a question in the Church as to when the fetus was considered human (ensouled).
This is what it really seems to me. I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me out.
Have you ever studied the history of the doctrine of "usury"?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea3.asp
When first issued, "usury" was defined simply as "charging interest". A loan had to be issued simply with the intent of assisting someone in need with no expectation of interest payment.
Today, the definition of "usury" has changed. "Usury" is now the charging of interest at an exhorbitant indefensible rate. In other words, a person may today take money out of the bank to assist a person in need and expect to receive what he loaned and what he would have expected to receive in interest from the bank. Of course, one is still forbidden to charge interest to the destitute.
Now, if we look at the idea of "ensoulment", we see that the Catholic Church has always condemned the practice of abortion after "ensoulment".
Abortion before ensoulment is simply "contraception" which is a less serious yet "mortal" sin none the less.
So, I hope that addresses your question.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Current time is 03:43 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
