Ned, any comment on my reply to your Catechetical references yesterday?
Replies to: Ned, any comment on my reply to your Catechetical references yesterday?
Make your final argument, and then let's give this topic a rest.
(no message)
No. You have no comment on Sections 2270-71?
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
But I did for 2272...Pope Francis overturned the Brazilian Bishop's 'latae sententiae' (automatic)
Excommunication of all those involved in the abortion conducted for that 9 yr old girl...and furthermore, he eliminated the exclusivity of Bishops making such judgements...allowing all RCC priests the ability to absolve Abortion actions by women, doctors and all those involved through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. That Prudential decision has profound implications for the abortion issue....and you have no comment? Sounds to me like you're avoiding having to acknowledge the truth and reality of the RCC showing mercy and understanding for the horrific injustices that can befall women.
Your silence shows you don't care.
Correct. I don't think it is as "profound" as you do, because I'm not trying to twist its meaning.
The pope has always had the power to overturn excommunication. Also, personally, I think all priests should be enabled to forgive all abortion. Having said that, I'm not the pope; I leave such things as the mechanics of this to the hierarchy of the Church. And, so, I have no need to comment.
The sections which relate directly to your disagreement with the Church are in the two prior sections, which state unequivocally that abortion is wrong ... you skipped over those sections. I've reproduced them again below, since you seem to want to avoid those sections, and selectively guide the discussion elsewhere (to the mechanics of forgiveness [Church discipline], away from the morality we are discussing [Church Doctrine]). Care to comment on these sections which state unchanging Doctrine? If not, how should I interpret your silence?
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
I stipulate that Abortion is a sin...and that an embryo/fetus should be treated "AS" a potential
human being, although it is not recognized as a Person...like a woman who can bear a child....now, back to 2272...
i2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
Pope Francis overturned this penalty (Excommunication) and made Abortion "Forgivable" through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If it is forgivable, at least under certain conditions...then for Mercy and Justice's sake it needs to be legal and available. The Brazilian Bishop was/is a 'Hard Liner' who was unable to make a Prudential Judgment in the case of the 9 yr old girl...he was/is a "lIteralist" with no sense of Mercy or Fairness for the young girl and her family. Fortunately, Pope Francis was the opposite...
How would you characterize yourself...a Hard Line Literalist....or someone who is Merciful and capable of Making a Prudential Judgement allowing her to undergo an abortion?
Remember that a U.S. nationwide ban on abortion (our immediate concern) would put millions of women in a no-win condition...just like before Roe v Wade...a Forced or Coerced pregnancy they never wanted which could cause physical and mental harm for the rest of their lives...and maybe even lose their lives...especially if they resorted to 'Self' or 'Back Alley' abortions...which experience shows us would definitely happen in large numbers...and mostly to those who are poor...the wealthy will always find a way to get abortion access.
You said you cared about the horrible attack on that 9 yr old Brazilian girl...and that you are ok with priests being able to forgive abortions...so why the objection to legalized abortions that would provide the best medical care in such situations?
Because of 2270-71, to answer the question in your last paragraph.
You have no doctrinal basis to challenge those teachings, so let's set aside the bullshit you are piling on Pope Francis' grave.
You are making a non-religious argument:
You are making a secular argument that it is permissible, even preferable, for the law to transfer harm from one innocent human being to another innocent human being. We don't typically (ever?) do this.
Further, you argue that it is morally better to kill one of two innocent human beings than to allow the other of the two human beings to suffer. I suppose this is preferable for you because the harm is visible, whereas the killing is hidden. But that is not how we judge morality...and because you know this, you are left with defining a class of human beings as "not persons." Can you think of any other circumstance in which such an argument (that some humans aren't persons) was used to justify a net good? I can't. Instead, history is full of examples in which such logic was used to justify killing Jews, enslaving blacks, killing the mentally handicapped, forced sterilization, etc. Those are the traditions which your "prudential" argument puts you in the middle of.
Some times morality requires tough decisions. If we change morality when living it becomes too hard, then it is not really morality, is it. Why bother having a set of "rules" which change whenever you want? Just do what you want.
BTW, you like to talk about the 9 year old. I get it. That is a terrible case. But it seems like you are using her special case to justify millions of other abortions. What about the 30 year old who wants a son and not a daughter?....or doesn't want to interrupt her career?...or doesn't want her husband to know she was having an affair? Do you think that woman should be able to get a legal, purely elective abortion?
Consent Management