Posted on 02/21/2003 9:11:54 AM PST by Maximilian
ABORTION
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2322
From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice, gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human 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. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272
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," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
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.
2273
The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.
The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.
2274
Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."
2275
"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.
Also see:
THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND ABORTION:
Extensively detailed research about Christianity and the sanctity of life.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
LOL!
Christ spent His entire earthly ministry opposing the legalism of the Jewish religion. The Jews had nothing on Catholic legalism.
My comment came directly, word for word, from the book of Mark. Not a single syllable of my own invention! Are you claiming that St. Mark knows nothing about forgiveness of sins?
She has posted on her website these excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to demonstrate how specious were the arguments that the bishops used against the law.That is false. This article was posted at least as of May 31, 2000, which was over 2 ½ years ago. You stop at nothing to slam these Bishops. Did Bishop Zipfel get under your thin SSPX skin by calling the SSPX schismatic, referring to Archbishop Lefebvre as excommunicated, and making it clear to Catholics in his diocese that the local SSPX parish did not enjoy communion with the Roman Catholic Church?
Perhaps it was his ignoring the SSPX demand that he “Halt the celebration of the New Mass” that gets to Traditionalists?
Who knows. However, I do note that you repeatedly characterize Ms. Brown as being “disturbed by the cowardice of the North Dakota bishops.” In addition to your claim that these catechism sections are new, are you her spokesman or something now? If not, can you show me where she says something of this sort, or are you just putting words in her mouth?
Yes, she disagrees with the Bishops on this, but I hardly think she agrees with you, and posting two year old materials from her website, lying about their date, and putting words in her mouth hardly helps your case.
You are fond of making bogus claims about non-schismatic Catholics, like your previous claim on this issue that “not even Catholic bishops truly support the right to life,” a claim so thoroughly proven false that you couldn’t even respond last time, and just like your claim that “The default state today for virtually all Catholics is to be living objectively in a state of mortal sin” something you still have yet to justify.
I’m sure you consider me to be in mortal sin merely for responding to you again. Regardless, your agenda is transparent, and your efforts are disingenuous.
patent +AMDG
I would agree. That one baffles both me and St. Mark.
LOL. The quote you made isn’t Jesus speaking, or even St. Mark, it’s the scribes. It was put in their to demonstrate thier foolishness, yet you quote it as wisdom. You apparently think one should quote the scribes as a source of theology. The full citation:WHy doth this one venture to threads to comment on subjects about which he/she knows nothing?My comment came directly, word for word, from the book of Mark. Not a single syllable of my own invention! Are you claiming that St. Mark knows nothing about forgiveness of sins?
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,So, Onelifetogive, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? We Catholics will stick with Jesus.7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
patent +AMDG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.