ForumGarden

Bronwen wrote: 2. I didn't expect you to do so from memory; but saying 'a direct appeal was made' really creates more questions than it answers. It's very unlikely that anyone familiar with Catholic teaching would have made such an appeal. What about already-born children who may have been harmed? Did the parents want to kill them too? What's the difference? It reminds me of an old minstrel-show joke:

Mistah Bones, I had ta shoot mah dawg!

Had to shoot yo' dawg? Was he mad?

Well, he wasn't exactly thrilled!

3a. Not a very good example, because there He was preventing a rather than permitting one.

3b. You have a right to your opinion of course, but again, lordy, how I to keep repeating things, most of Christianity, as well as many other religions, disagree. It is hardly a Catholic monopoly.

To me, speaking medically rather than religiously, it would depend on the progress of the pregnancy. If it were advanced, say over five or six months, I would see it as, essentially, a living child. And I assume from your avatar that you are male, which might also make a difference in your point of view. I could not abort a child at stage of development. At an earlier stage, were I not observant of Catholic teaching, I possibly could.

3c. Neither do I, but that has very little to do with abortion.

3d. You can't them both together.


2, 3b) The effects are quite specific, high probability of severe foetal abnormalities when exposed at an early stage of pregnancy. Nobody was suggesting aborting potentially self sustaining babies or killing young children.

3d) That is precisely what the Catholic Church does want - both a ban on the use of contraception and on the provision of abortion.

Bryn Mawr wrote: 2, 3b) The effects are quite specific, high probability of severe foetal abnormalities when exposed at an early stage of pregnancy. Nobody was suggesting aborting potentially self sustaining babies or young children.

3d) That is precisely what the Catholic Church does want - both a ban on the use of contraception and on the provision of abortion.2. I understand that, but you are dodging. You claimed that an appeal was made to the pope to permit abortions in ONE OR THE OTHER of the instances you mentioned, I doubt that and would like to have some documentation and details.

3d. Wrong-o. I have no time to elaborate because I'm already late for an appointment, but will do so later.

Added later:

With regard to abortion, there is no question that the Catholic Church opposes it strongly. Since you have not named any Protestant denomination that approves of it, I will, at least for the time being, assume that there are none.

Regarding birth control, the official teaching of the Church is that it should be by natural rather than artificial means, and millions of Catholics use this method with complete satisfaction. Recently, however, birth control has become something of a non-issue in many countries, with the Church, while not changing its teachings, leaving Catholic couples to follow their own consciences. I have lived here in Germany for almost seven years and I have never heard birth control mentioned once, from the pulpit or in popular Catholic periodicals, so I conclude that at least here what couples do in private is something the Church isn't much concerned with. That may be different in other countries. I don't know if that addresses your point. If you are saying that the Catholic Church wants to ban contraceptive devices, even for non-Catholics, that seems to fall in line with some of your other undocumented claims, and I would like some support if you can provide it. The Church is, in many respects, old-fashioned, but it is not stupid. I think it is well aware that this is something on which it is standing alone except for a small percentage of ultra-Orthodox Jews. That is not the case at all with regard to abortion.