Thanks, Stratocaster, I was wondering if there might be something like that going on.
But if the mother’s life is not in danger to the degree necessary to allow abortion, then ISTM the Church is being consistent - rape is not a justification for abortion if you consider the fetus as a separate human life. You can’t kill an innocent life because of something its father did.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re welcome!
God has devised a natural means by which the sick and elderly shall shuffle off this mortal coil when their time has come. He (and Man) in general disapproves of any attempt to expedite this through, say, the judicious application of a feather pillow to the sleeping face. This analogy any use to you?
Part of the reason I say that they are choosing to take a stand on abortion above all else is that I don’t see the RCC excommunicating judges such as Sharon Keller who are involved in death penalty cases. I bring her up because her words on finality and actions which are bringing her under scrutiny show a disregard for justice and the sanctity of life.
Maybe so. But they aren’t actions, like some, that by definition automatically invoke excommunication under canon law by virtue of their unambiguous evil (trying to clarify, not to preach). A judge can sentence someone to death, for example, and that act, by definition, is not de facto cause for excommunication. A judge who declared a sentence of death to be based on her complete rejection of the RCC’s teachings on the sanctity of life might see a different outcome. But in any event, the fact that this judge has not been excommunicated does not mean her acts are sanctioned by the church.
There are some vile acts, stuff the church really, really frowns upon, that do not lead to automatic excommunication. These are some pretty arcane canonical distinctions, but they don’t mean “all acts that do NOT lead to automatic excommunication are A-okay.” It seems as if that’s what you’re inferring.
Okay, so you’ve cited one supposed offense (levelling the death penalty) that you believe the Catholic Church to be ignoring. How does this logically imply that the Catholic Church is holding abortion above every and all other sins? It seems to me that there’s a rather large logical gap there.
Moreover, as Stratocaster correctly pointed out, the actions of this judge do not mean that the Catholic Church is upholding her actions. In addition, it could very well be that the church simply is not prepared to tackle this particular case – possibly because the Magisterium feels that it needs to learn more about the particulars of this case in order to avoid shooting from the hip. Heck, it could simply be because the church does not have the time or resources to tackle every single case of grave political or judicial malfeasance, of which there are many.
Again, I say these things as a non-Catholic. A non-Catholic who believes in treating such issues fairly, whether they involve Protestants or Catholics, Christians or non-Christians, conservatives or liberals, or theists or non-theists.
According to a well cited article in wikipedia a woman procuring an abortion is the only person subject to Latae sententiae aka automatic excommunication for a reason that has nothing directly to do with the church. All the others involve something or someone specifically religious, from heresy to a physical assault on the pope.
Abortion has nothing to do with the church? Anyway, you seem to continue to believe that only those matters subject to automatic excommunication are considered grave sins. They are, in theory, sins that can only and unambiguously be construed as a deliberate rejection of church law. There is also excommunication ab homine, which occurs by ruling (also categorized as ferendae sententiae). People excommunicated thusly are no less excommunicated, really. This is a canonical distinction, frankly, that I would think uninteresting to most Catholics. I’ll grant you that what is subject to ferendae sententiae versus latae sententiae may be fine distinctions, but in either event, the subject is just as excommunicated.
Also from that cite (emphasis added):
So, this may seem counter-intuitive to you, but between two people who have committed a grave sin, the one who is excommunicated has been done the greater favor–it has been made clear to him that repentance is required. Not trying to convert you, just pointing out that your fascination with this subset of canon law is more complicated than “some things get you automatically excommunicated, some don’t.”
Things that effectively self-perpetuate continue, things that don’t do not. The RCC is a system that self perpetuates effectively. The single most effective means the RCC has for self perpetuating is childbirth, since comparatively few become catholic by any other means.
This is not to say that the hierarchy made a deliberate decision to base their anti-abortion views on what would make the RCC grow. Rather, there are a lot of possible rules. The church that happens to have the rules that best make it self perpetuate will best self-perpetuate.
Paul handed over some to Satan, to be taught not to blaspheme (I assume against the Holy Spirit), this however is God Himself acting through Paul IMHO. It is a point where someone’s calling is so badly ignored that they are being useless to God. God then allows Satan to ruin their life (note: Job was handed over to Satan). This is the closest thing to ex-com in the NT. This only is for Holy Spirit filled believers. This seems to be the only form of ‘ex-com’ that is for believers.
Besides that is Paul’s anointing, and has never been claimed by the RCC AFAIK, they claim Peter’s anointing - the keys to the Kingdom. Though that claim is man made and not of God IMHO. As such they don’t even have the authority to hand over to Satan.
The OT rules allow a form of ex-com for rules violation, excluding from worship, till they are made clean. This is the ex-com the RCC is using against these people, it is however what Jesus came to set us free from. For those in Christ, the law is nailed to a tree, so no man can condemn them, and especially the church should not condemn them using OT rules.
So IMHO is the RCC that is enforcing OT rules that should not apply to those under Christ. As such they are doing it themselves as man, and will incur the consequences upon themselves as you reap what you sow.
IMHO abortion is a more heinous sin against humanity then murder, as it is the refusal to acknowledge the humanity of another and disposing of them like trash. As a society we reap what we sow, and we do have very many people who are treated like trash.
As for your question, we run into circumstances where one must die so that another must live. The difference in abortion is the ignoring the humanity of the baby. That is a person and should be acknowledged as a person, a member of the human family.
I’m not for ex-com at all, it is based on the OT law that Jesus sets us free of.
AFAIK only the people who preformed the abortion of the baby were ex-com’ed, mother and father of that child were not ex-com’ed.
From the article linked in the OP:
Lets employ that standard to determine the will of God .
First, Jesus is God. Right?
What does God do?
Well, 33% of known pregnancies are aborted by God’s hand. The atheists call them spontaneous abortions because they do not recognize God’s hand.
Given that in 2000,the highest annual abortion rate on record using Canada as an example, there were 32.2 abortions for every live birth, or 24% of pregnancies that God spared. We haven’t fully lived up to His example yet.
If God smites some of the fetuses, does that make Him a bad God ?
Well, only if you assume fetuses have a soul.
Good News.
The bible says our names are written in heaven.
Ever heard of a fetus with a name ?
Does God smite some fetuses, probably, but a miscarriage or stillborn does not necessarily mean that God ordered the death, but He could have allowed it. We are formed spiritually at that point. and may have made choices about what type of life we will have, which may have ended it.
Actually yes I have. Also it is written that God can give us a name, and for some people He states He will. We can see this as God changed some names, Saul/Paul, Abram/Abraham, Isac/Israel etc. Along with God naming some of His children in the womb (Jesus, John the baptist).
Also to mention that God states fetal children are capable of recognizing each other while both are in different wombs.
Ok, this one i’d like to see the cite for, if that’s ok. It sounds interesting.
Isn’t this about John and Jesus? I thought I recall that from the gospel. And I named my daughter a day before the positive pregnancy test, but I thought there was a tradition kept by Jews at least to not name children until they are born.
Yes, when Mary at three months visited Elizabeth near term. I don’t believe there are too many other documented instances though, and I’d beware of generalising too freely from this instance. 
Here is the verses I was referring to:
Yeah, I think i’d have to echo others and say that seems a bit too iffy to generalise from - if nothing else, it doesn’t seem particularly safe to assume that what goes for those particular people goes for the rest of us.
Here are 2 related verses that goes to recognition of each other pre-birth, though this in in the same womb:
Here are some more verses about life in the womb: