WI Catholic Church reverse stand on abortion

[NapoleonXIV]

This is unlikely, but well within the realm of possibility. WI a new (or the present) Pope reverses the Church's stand on abortion? They now fully approve of all birth control and abortion until the time of full delivery, saying that the teaching is now clear that the soul does not enter the child while any part remains in the mother's body.

Does the Church now become the biggest promoter of condom use in Africa, to stop the AIDS epidemic?

Do large segments of the Catholics drop off, as some did even over such a seemingly small thing as requiring vernacular masses?

What about American politics? What happens to the pro-life movement when its biggest supporter is gone.

[The Sandman]

Wow, that would be one hell of a schism in the Catholic Church. Exactly how much would have to change in regard to basic Catholic theology to allow abortion.

Who knows, maybe the Pope's Palace in Avignon sees some use again...

[Wendell]

The Church would first approve most contraception, and then gradually advance into various forms and stages of abortion. On a side note, don't parts of the Church already endorse condom use, particularly in Africa?

[MrP]

On a side note, don't parts of the Church already endorse condom use, particularly in Africa?

Not that I'm aware. They certainly don't have official sanction for it, if they do. They don't support it even in the West; they just turn a blind eye to the fact that the current generation merely has two or three children apiece rather than half a dozen. ;)

To get the Church to opine that abortion os acceptable up till the time of delivery, you'd have to make the Church disregard the fact that premature babies survive. You'd have compassionate anti-abortionists - who fear that the child feels - against the Church, arguing that the child isn't worth it.

That is pretty ASB, I'm afraid.

But some level of support for abortion may turn up in the coming century. Not until the idea has absorbed most of the rest of society. The Church promoted the rhythm method, which can cause weak foetuses to be brought to term. One of my aunts has had contstant stomach (and other) problems since birth because she's one of these weaker foetuses. My Mum ran across a book once (in the '70s, IIRC) claiming that the Church knew of the scientific evidence and pushed the method anyway. I haven't noticed anyone recant yet, either.

Like Wendell says, this needs doing gradually. First contraception, then limited abortion. And, yes, whenever the Church does it, they'll lose support.

If Benedict, former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (!), were merely to suggest that the Church should support such a drastic form of abortion, he'd get locked up for having had a nervous breakdown.

I get literature from an irritated Catholic group based in Ireland. They regularly compare abortion statistics to the Holocaust. A lot of people agree. Some would go further.

So, no, neither this Pope nor the next could suggest this. But give it a century and you might get something similar but not the same.

[Hendryk]

I agree with the general consensus that the Church's doctrinal evolution would have been gradual and slow. Now it depends on the date of the POD. Vatican II could be a possibility, many other "unquestionable" dogmas were corrected at the time, and birth control could have been one of them (so no "Humanae Vitae" encyclica by Paul VI in 1968). In the following decades the Catholic Church's position may have gradually got closer to that of, say, the Church of England's.

[Shope]

If that POD happened, believing Catholics would stop believing that Jesus is God.


The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrine (it's true--there's doctrine and discipline; discipline can be changed, doctrine cannot be) and never will.

The Church is the Living Body of Christ and is guided by the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) that Jesus promised to send in order to guide His Church.

If the Catholic Church changes a doctrine, they will be saying that Jesus was a liar: if the doctrine is wrong, the Paraclete must not have been guiding the Church. If the Paraclete wasn't guiding the Church, Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is a liar, He can't be God.

If the Catholic Church changes any point of doctrine, they will be saying that Christianity was bullshit all along.

[Hendryk]

The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrine (it's true--there's doctrine and discipline; discipline can be changed, doctrine cannot be) and never will.
This may boil down to a question of definition, but it seems to me that the Church has changed elements of doctrine on several occasions already. Exemples include:
-- celibacy of the clergy
-- the existence of Purgatory
-- the role of the Virgin Mary
-- Papal infallibility
-- oecumenical relationships with other Christian churches and other religions
-- the political expression of Providence, and specifically human rights

[Syphon]

This would come down to theologicial disputes.

Isn't one of the bloody big rules, Thy should not Kill.

This is one reason I don't support abortion not so much the killing part as it allows the medical profession to define what alive is.

Is there any difference between killing the unborn or one that has just been born?
Neither can survive on their own with out help.

And the medical profession are discovering more about the unborn every day.

So if abortion is allowed so should euthanasia, of the infirm, the brain dead, those who are unable to help themselves through quadriplegia or other injuries or illness and those with mental disabilities.

Quite a can of worms that this would open.

I'm not particularly religious but this would be be a break in the major believes of the church and any pope who tried would not just be removed from the paplecy but probably excommunicated as well.

I don't believe that the world needs abortion as a convenient form of contraception there are many other less invasive methods now of preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

I'll get off my soap box know but in context to the thread I could see the church allowing contraceptives but abortion would mean the church disregarding one of the main commandments what ever number it is.

[Mike Stearns]

I don't see how this could ever be possible. I could see the Church approving the use of the pill and condoms, as they are preemptive measures, but abortion? I doubt. I think that any pope who suggested it would probably be declared incompetant and removed.

[Straha]

Have a series of liberal popes get in power instead of John Paul II and Benedict XVI

[The Mists Of Time]

There are three doctrines The Catholic Church holds about life that determine The Church's position on abortion and birth control.

1. The human soul is created and human life begins at the instant of conception. The fertilized human egg is an individual human being with a human soul at the instant of conception. This is why The Church opposes abortion and considers abortion to be murder.

2. Human life is sacred and must be respected and protected from the instant of conception until death. This is why The Catholic Church opposes abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

3. Marriage is a Holy Sacrement sanctified by Jesus Christ and specially blessed by God. Of course, between husband and wife within marriage is the only place where sex can be allowed, and sex is a special gift of love between husband and wife showing their love for each other. Therefore the sex act must always be open to the possibility of life, sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility that it will result in the creation of a new human soul. This is why The Catholic Church opposes artificial birth control. The only birth control The Church allows is to calculate when in her monthly cycle the wife can conceive and then you just don't have intercourse then. But the sex act (intercourse) must always be open to life.

For The Catholic Church to reverse its position on abortion, The Church would have to completely change or reverse its views and position on human life and on the sacredness of human life. Believe me, that is something The Catholic Church will never, never, never do.

[Hendryk]

For The Catholic Church to reverse its position on abortion, The Church would have to completely change or reverse its views and position on human life and on the sacredness of human life. Believe me, that is something The Catholic Church will never, never, never do.
I don't think it would have to "change" or "reverse" its position on the sacredness of human life per se; all that's needed is a modification of the doctrinal view of when human life begins. And that is no more difficult to arrange than other, more far-reaching about-faces in Church history.

Let's keep in mind that when it comes to such an issue as the death penalty, the position of the Church has evolved to quite a great extent. And anyway, if other Christian denominations have managed it, why not the Catholic Church?

[Darkling]

Karol Wojtyła gets run over by a bus (Poland and Eastern Europe probably get a worse time of it because of this though) and somebody with more liberal views on contraception becomes the architect of Paul VI's view on contraception and thus Church policy.

Somebody could also take the (Thomas More IIRC) line that the soul comes into the body when the skull is fully formed however that still won’t get eth church supporting later term abortions as they would probably re interpret it as the soul entering the body when the CNS is sufficiently formed for life.

[MrP]

Have a series of liberal popes get in power instead of John Paul II and Benedict XVI

'Fraid not, old boy. You'd need not so much liberal Popes as some who disregarded the idea of life beginning at conception. That's a fundamental underpinning of the Church's anti-contraception stance. Besides that, you'd need a sizeable chunk of the College of Cardinals to side with them. Not because we're a democracy, but to avoid schism or replacing the Pope(s).

Besides, the Church supporting abortion up till the very time of birth is just ASB. There were calls only a few months ago from medical chaps this side of the pond, wanting to restrict further the period in which abortions can be performed. This was because there was new evidence that foetuses were more aware than previously thought.

I fear, Napoleon, that while I agree that this scenario is unlikely, I don't agree that it's very possible either. One would need either someone deliberately attempting to subvert or destroy the Church or a sudden onset of madness. If this were in the pre-1900 forum, there might be fewer problems, because we could go right back to the start of Christianity. But post-1900? No. A global cataclysm might smack society about, screw up the Church's internal politics and eventually lead to support for abortion to prevent unhealthy children. But I can't imagine a society anything like ours having a scenario at all like this.

[Tom_B]

Mists of Time makes some good distinctions which sort of got blurred in the original formulation of this thread (which has a Barely Hidden Agenda).

I would point out that the Church in its early days (make that centuries) did not regard ensoulment as beginning at conception. Abortion before "quickening" was regarded as a lesser offense than abortion after quickening which was considered infanticide. St. Thomas held to the Aristotelian doctrine that the seed progresses from a plantlike to an animal and then to a human stage.

IIRC Justice Blackmun makes some reference to quickening in Roe vs Wade.

So it is ever so slightly possible that Benedict might eat some strange sushi one night and wake up next morning convinced that Aquinas was right after all (this is extra unlikely in his case because he is a ressourcement Augustinian who likes to downplay Thomism). So abortion very early in a pregancy is not murder. This might have some implications re the abortion pill. It still leaves the related but distinct issues of artifical contraception.

There is no way the CHurch would endorse the fatuous notion of ensoulment at birth.

[MrP]

Mists of Time makes some good distinctions which sort of got blurred in the original formulation of this thread (which has a Barely Hidden Agenda).

I would point out that the Church in its early days (make that centuries) did not regard ensoulment as beginning at conception. Abortion before "quickening" was regarded as a lesser offense than abortion after quickening which was considered infanticide. St. Thomas held to the Aristotelian doctrine that the seed progresses from a plantlike to an animal and then to a human stage.

IIRC Justice Blackmun makes some reference to quickening in Roe vs Wade.

So it is ever so slightly possible that Benedict might eat some strange sushi one night and wake up next morning and wake up next morning convinced that Aquinas was right after all (this is extra unlikely in his case because he is a ressourcement Augustinian who likes to downplay Thomism). So abortion very early in a pregancy is not murder. This might have some implications re the abortion pill. It still leaves the related but distinct issues of artifical contraception.

There is no way the CHurch would endorse the fatuous notion of ensoulment at birth.

Interesting points, Tom. The only quibble I have is that the Agenda isn't even a Barely Hidden one. ;)

[JLCook]

I get literature from an irritated Catholic group based in Ireland. They regularly compare abortion statistics to the Holocaust. A lot of people agree. Some would go further.




I suppose that is what the Europeans would think was comparable.

Myself, I am an American, and I find that Abortion is much more comparable to the institution of Slavery in most respects than being comparable to the holocaust.

I'll admit that the Holocaust was a very virulent form of evil, but it's practitioners had to know that it WAS Evil.

Slaveowners on the otherhand, were of the opinion that they had the RIGHT to own slaves, just like people today feel that they have the RIGHT to kill unborn babies.

Back in 1855, you heard about the "Property rights of slaveowners", just as today you hear: "It's the RIGHT of a woman to do with her own body as she pleases" ( Someone explain to me how this doesn't automaticlly become a justification for Prostitution).

[The Ubbergeek]

It's more like the right to say 'f*** you' to a machist man who would tell a woman what to do with her boddy, like keeping the baby. A thing that religious conservatives have at head.

[Wendell]

There are three doctrines The Catholic Church holds about life that determine The Church's position on abortion and birth control.

1. The human soul is created and human life begins at the instant of conception. The fertilized human egg is an individual human being with a human soul at the instant of conception. This is why The Church opposes abortion and considers abortion to be murder.

2. Human life is sacred and must be respected and protected from the instant of conception until death. This is why The Catholic Church opposes abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

3. Marriage is a Holy Sacrement sanctified by Jesus Christ and specially blessed by God. Of course, between husband and wife within marriage is the only place where sex can be allowed, and sex is a special gift of love between husband and wife showing their love for each other. Therefore the sex act must always be open to the possibility of life, sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility that it will result in the creation of a new human soul. This is why The Catholic Church opposes artificial birth control. The only birth control The Church allows is to calculate when in her monthly cycle the wife can conceive and then you just don't have intercourse then. But the sex act (intercourse) must always be open to life.

For The Catholic Church to reverse its position on abortion, The Church would have to completely change or reverse its views and position on human life and on the sacredness of human life. Believe me, that is something The Catholic Church will never, never, never do.
But an act of birth control instituted prior to the coitus would only prevent the conception, not thwart it. Granted, abortion would have that thwarting effect.

[Wendell]

I suppose that is what the Europeans would think was comparable.

Myself, I am an American, and I find that Abortion is much more comparable to the institution of Slavery in most respects than being comparable to the holocaust.

I'll admit that the Holocaust was a very virulent form of evil, but it's practitioners had to know that it WAS Evil.

Slaveowners on the otherhand, were of the opinion that they had the RIGHT to own slaves, just like people today feel that they have the RIGHT to kill unborn babies.

Back in 1855, you heard about the "Property rights of slaveowners", just as today you hear: "It's the RIGHT of a woman to do with her own body as she pleases" ( Someone explain to me how this doesn't automaticlly become a justification for Prostitution).
Worse, it could bar any legitimacy in the regulation of prostitution.

[The Mists Of Time]

But an act of birth control instituted prior to the coitus would only prevent the conception, not thwart it. Granted, abortion would have that thwarting effect.

The Catholic Church's position on birth control is that sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of life. Artificial contraceptives prevent sexual intercourse from being open to the possibility of life, that's why The Church opposes artificial contraceptives. The Catholic Church's position also is that sexual intercourse is only to take place between husband and wife within the marriage relationship.

The Catholic Church's position on human life is that each human life is sacred, and that the human soul is created and human life begins at the instant of conception.

These are positions the Roman Catholic Church will never, never, never change.

[Wendell]

The Catholic Church's position on birth control is that sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of life. Artificial contraceptives prevent sexual intercourse from being open to the possibility of life, that's why The Church opposes artificial contraceptives. The Catholic Church's position also is that sexual intercourse is only to take place between husband and wife within the marriage relationship.

The Catholic Church's position on human life is that each human life is sacred, and that the human soul is created and human life begins at the instant of conception.

These are positions the Roman Catholic Church will never, never, never change.
The first part of that was the only place where I was really unclear with regard to the Church's position on these matters.

[The Ubbergeek]

Don't be so sure. Church changed along the years, it may change diue to the drying of her menpower flow...

I can see the church changing things on contraception. Of the two, its the lesser.

[Wendell]

Don't be so sure. Church changed along the years, it may change diue to the drying of her menpower flow...

I can see the church changing things on contraception. Of the two, its the lesser.
The manpower issue will be alleviated by accepting clerical marriage in the future.

[The Ubbergeek]

It will only resolve a part of it, you know. Married or not, it may not bring too much more new blood (even if it would be good that it be changed).

[NapoleonXIV]

The manpower issue will be alleviated by accepting clerical marriage in the future.

Or by not having as many parishioners to service.

Is it just me, or do most of the replies here seem slightly partisan somehow:D.

Truly, I meant no disrespect and I wasn't trolling. You've answered my question, if I want to write this into a scenario it better be more justified than Lakota's selling the Vatican in Shoes of the Fisherman

The main thing that most of you are forgetting is that many, many Catholics, probably the majority, would be vastly relieved if this kind of ruling came about. It would almost certainly be a majority if just the ruling on contraceptives was overturned. Contrary to apparent opinion on this board we do not all want huge families and greet unexpected pregnancies with unmitigated glee.

A ruling like this would undoubtedly cause great controversy and upheaval yes, but it would be as much supportive as protesting and while the Church would undoubtedly lose many followers it would probably gain or at least keep, just as many who would otherwise eventually break away.

[Wendell]

Or by not having as many parishioners to service.

Is it just me, or do most of the replies here seem slightly partisan somehow:D.

Truly, I meant no disrespect and I wasn't trolling. You've answered my question, if I want to write this into a scenario it better be more justified than Lakota's selling the Vatican in Shoes of the Fisherman

The main thing that most of you are forgetting is that many, many Catholics, probably the majority, would be vastly relieved if this kind of ruling came about. It would almost certainly be a majority if just the ruling on contraceptives was overturned. Contrary to apparent opinion on this board we do not all want huge families and greet unexpected pregnancies with unmitigated glee.

A ruling like this would undoubtedly cause great controversy and upheaval yes, but it would be as much supportive as protesting and while the Church would undoubtedly lose many followers it would probably gain or at least keep, just as many who would otherwise eventually break away.
Still a probable net loss in following.

[Darkling]

The Catholic Church's position on birth control is that sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of life. Artificial contraceptives prevent sexual intercourse from being open to the possibility of life, that's why The Church opposes artificial contraceptives. The Catholic Church's position also is that sexual intercourse is only to take place between husband and wife within the marriage relationship.

The Catholic Church's position on human life is that each human life is sacred, and that the human soul is created and human life begins at the instant of conception.

These are positions the Roman Catholic Church will never, never, never change.
The idea that sexual intercourse must be open to the possibility to conception is a new idea that the previous Pope (before he became Pope) and a friend of his came up with.

It also doesn't make a lot of sense because having sex based upon a woman’s reproductive cycle is a deliberate attempt to prevent conception, now of course there is a chance of failure and thus conception but that is also true of Condoms for example which have a small chance of failure and thus also open to conception.

It is also a problem because those who are infertile are still allowed to have sex because it is recognised as a part of a healthy marriage.

[MrP]

Truly, I meant no disrespect and I wasn't trolling.

Oh, ok. I'm just suspicious. :o Apologies.

The main thing that most of you are forgetting is that many, many Catholics, probably the majority, would be vastly relieved if this kind of ruling came about. It would almost certainly be a majority if just the ruling on contraceptives was overturned. Contrary to apparent opinion on this board we do not all want huge families and greet unexpected pregnancies with unmitigated glee.

A ruling like this would undoubtedly cause great controversy and upheaval yes, but it would be as much supportive as protesting and while the Church would undoubtedly lose many followers it would probably gain or at least keep, just as many who would otherwise eventually break away.

I would be happy if the Church overturned a couple of things. I don't understand the ban on clerical marriage. St. Paul's misogyny aside, I can't see any other justification for it. Certainly not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's that I read a few years ago. "Jesus only had male disciples." :rolleyes: I'm also in favour of overturning the ban on contraception. As I said before, it's largely ignored in the developed world, and the dogmatic adherence to it in Africa is bad for people and the Church. Still, to shoot themselves in the foot so badly, they must believe.

But I'd never support abortions of the kind you describe above. I've no brief against women's rights, but as JLCook says above, it's a deeply questionable and morally tense topic. A path to understanding why people consider the abortion statistics comparable to the Holocaust is simply admitting that they have great regard for life. It really isn't about the subjugation of women for these people. Not as far as I can ascertain. It may be secondary and subconscious, but it isn't their primary aim.

They honestly believe abortion to be murder, and that murder is wrong. The question of choice seems to them as facetious as the question of choice in whether one should be allowed to stab someone to death if they get in one's way in life.

I don't quite have their opinion. I believe that abortion is murder, that murder is often justifiable (though not by recourse to the NT), but also that even killing animals is generally murder as well, although people often do justify that murder (sometimes by recourse to the NT - but I've seen Genesis more). But most importantly I have such an overpowering respect for women that I can't even conceive of attempting to limit their rights by removing their freedom of choice.

That said, abortions permitted up to the time of birth is demonstrably cruel. Being something of a moral coward, I don't keep up with the latest research, because I don't want to be forced to the conclusion that abortions are painful for the foetus/developing child. But even so, we all know that premature babies survive. So to allow abortion up to the end removes all question of choice, and pushes the act firmly into murder.

Generally, albeit not always, pregnancies are evident in time for women to decide whether they want to retain or lose their child. Pushing back the time would be a positive step for women who have "hidden pregnancies" and wish not to give birth, but would be very bad news for the foetuses/developing children.

So I could see a level of support for the introduction of contraception, since it's tacitly acknowledged, and merely prevents life, without destroying it. But there's no chance of widespread Catholic support for both allowing abortions and pushing them to the date of delivery. The Pope would be out on his ear within 48 hours, tops. The new one would explain about the sad breakdown of his predecessor, or give some other excuse.

A more limited form of abortion might be greeted, but it's so un-Catholic an idea that you'd really have to mess about with society this century to achieve it.

[The Ubbergeek]

As you see, catholics are not a monolithic block. Also here, I can speak of the liberal, catholic left who is very engaged in the world, and many see no problems with contraception, abortion (within reason and respect for everyone), but also gay unions, women ordination, etc....

[benedict XVII]

The Church may change its stance on contraception at some point. After all, it almost did so 35 years ago. As many pointed out, much less likely in the case of abortion. The only step I might maybe see would be in terms of accepting that this is an issue of faith, and that it should not intervene in the public debate on the matter. But it would still make it a strong obligation for Catholics not to retort to abortion.