|
changed several times aren't you? http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htmhttp://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/abortion.htmAugustine, Bishop of Hippo, wrote in On Exodus (ca. 415) that early abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed." Augustine believed that "hominization" took place at forty days after conception for males and eighty days for females. This view has been termed "delayed hominization" or "mediate animation," in contrast to "immediate animation/hominization" where the human soul is thought to exist from conception. However, in another work, On Marriage and Lust, Augustine condemned both abortion and contraception as immoral, since they permit sexual intercourse to occur without procreation, which he (like earlier Stoic philosophers) thought to be its only "natural" purpose. (Dombrowski; Hurst 8) Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, book II, ch. 89, reflected the influence of Aristotle's views on human development: "The vegetative soul, which comes first, when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive, and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted, it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without ." This "delayed hominization" view was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated by the Vatican. (Hurst 12; Rachels 68)
in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV in Sedes Apostolica recommended "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does." (Hurst 15)
http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/abortion.html
it appears that all of the bishops of signed off on the following claim (2nd paragraph) :
"It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church."
As the famously witty and scholarly Catholic Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." If only the church would select its bishops on the basis of their theological expertise, instead of their achievements as administrators or their loyalty to the Vatican, the church might not embarrass itself by such official misstatements. The fact is that history does not bear out claim of the present pope, the Vatican, and America's bishops that their present opposition to contraception represents a constant "teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord's own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified." The truth is that the Catholic Church's teaching regarding abortion and when human life begins is nowhere near as constant as it claims. And considering the use made by the hierarchy to influence the government of the United States (and of the rest of the world to some extent), it is important to set this record straight :
Excerpts from the book, Vicars of Christ, by Peter De Rosa (former professor at Gregorian University, in Rome):
Is the Soul Infused at Conception?
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.
From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'
The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.
In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even of adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.
Some went further. They said it was permissible to save a mother's life even after the foetus was humanized, that is, after the soul was infused. For what reason? Because the foetus' life had no absolute value; its value had to be weighed with others. What, then, in the classical case, when it came to a straight choice between saving the mother or the child? Was not the mother's life more valuable than the child's? Many hesitated. They said it was always wrong to kill an ensouled foetus directly. They were content to say it is permissible to kill it indirectly, that is, when medical treatment to help the mother incidentally and without intending it also killed or expelled the foetus The aim was solely to save the mother; the death of the foetus was sad by-product of that virtuous act.
History shows that popes, far from being able to solve these difficult moral dilemmas once and for all, were as mystified as anyone else They had no access to privileged information. They had to put forward arguments that were subject to rebuttal. For example, Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human. Even after forty days, though ii was homicide, it was not as serious as killing a person already born, since it was not done in hatred or revenge. His successor, the tempestuous Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed entirely. In his Bull Effraenatum of 1588, he said all abortions for whatever reason were homicide and were penalized by excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Immediately after Sixtus died, Gregory XIV realized that, in the current state of theological opinion, Sixtus' view was too severe. In an almost unique decision, he said Sixtus' censures were to be treated as is he had never issued them. Popes can be precipitate. They never did have answers up their sleeve to ongoing moral problems. Moral judgments depend on facts and circumstances, all of which must be kept under review. The nineteenth-century papacy forgot this basic principle on every issue related to liberty. Twentieth-century pope, have forgotten it on every issue relating to sex. Paul VI was not alone it reissuing ancient teachings regardless of entirely changed circumstances and the findings of science. In particular, the morality of abortion depends on biological facts.
In 1621 a Roman doctor, Paulo Zacchia, suggested that there was no biological basis for Aristotle's view that ensoulment was delayed for some time after conception. Zacchia was the most honoured physician in the papal court, yet his view had no impact on papal theological teaching. The Vatican issued a pastoral directive permitting but not enforcing the baptism of foetuses less than forty days. As late as the eighteenth century, the church's greatest moral theologian, St Alfonsus Liguori, was still denying that the soul was infused at conception. Like Aquinas before him, he did not say direct abortion was right, but his view allowed a flexibility of approach to abortion, especially when the mother's life was in danger. After 1750, this flexibility disappeared. For the first time in centuries, the church started to return to the intransigent attitude of the Fathers. (p. 375) |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(870 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
