Catholic Social Teaching

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

WinePusher

Catholic Social Teaching

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

Catholic Social Teaching can be summed up in an ethic called "the consistent life ethic." This ethic says that life, from conception to natural death should be preserved and protected. Therefore, the Catholic Church is opposed to:

-Embryonic Stem Cell Research
-Abortion
-Economic Injustice
-Euthanasia

and the Church supports:

-Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
-Universal Healthcare
-Programs such as Welfare

1) Do you agree with Catholic Social Teaching as it is presented above? Why or Why Not?
Last edited by WinePusher on Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #2

Post by LiamOS »

If the Ethic only encompasses life from conception, why is the church opposed to contraceptives?

WinePusher

Post #3

Post by WinePusher »

AkiThePirate wrote:If the Ethic only encompasses life from conception, why is the church opposed to contraceptives?
The way the Church views contraception, as I know it, is a means of stopping preganancy by unnatural methods. When it comes to contraception, I think it can be a lesser of two evils because it can prevent subsequent abortions, but I do not think the use of contraception should be promoted by society and schools.

User avatar
Jrosemary
Sage
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post #4

Post by Jrosemary »

There are a lot of issues in the OP! I'll start with my view of just one: abortion.

I follow Jewish law on this issue. Jewish law (halacha) does not tally with Catholic law when it comes to abortion. Halacha does not advocate abortion on demand, but it does allow abortion under certain circumstances.

The fetus is not a full fledged life per halacha. This is partly based on the Torah, which rules that if two men are fighting, slam into a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty is a fine. But if they cause the woman to die, the penalty is death, as it then becomes an issue of a life-for-a-life. (Exodus 21:22-23)

While Judaism has moved further and further away from applying or advocating the death penalty throughout its history, the point of this passage remains. As the Jewish Study Bible notes, "halachic exegesis infers that, since the punishment [for causing a miscarriage] is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."

So there's no rabbinic argument about the life of the mother: if the fetus has put that life at risk, then the mother should defend herself with an abortion.

Judaism also sees grounds for abortion when the health and well-being of the mother are at risk. However, these cases are much more complicated, and different rabbis (and different branches of Judaism) have different opinions on what is and isn't legitimate grounds for abortion.

(You can find a good write up of Orthodox Jewish views here. I belong to a liberal branch of Judaism--Conservative, but our views more-or-less tally with the Orthodox in this case.)

Individual Jews, of course--like individual Catholics--have different opinions on abortion, some more conservative and some more liberal. Personally, I agree with the halachic ruling that if a pregnancy has put a woman's life at risk, she should have the abortion. If a pregnancy has put a woman's health (mental or physical) at risk--well, like I said above, it's more complicated. Rabbis will argue about the specific circumstances, but I think we should err on the side of the health of the mother.

So I do not agree with the Catholic position, which, in my view, is far too absolutist and which does not allow for an abortion to be performed even to save the life of a mother, much less the health of the mother. I believe, with Jewish law, that a fetus is a potential life that should, in most cases, be nourished and protected--but it should not be allowed to threaten the mother's life nor, in some cases at least, the mother's health. I do not agree with the Catholic teaching that sees a fetus as a full-fledged life on par with the life of the mother.

WinePusher

Post #5

Post by WinePusher »

This was a good post. In general, I would actually agree with alot of the points you presented.
Jrosemary wrote:I follow Jewish law on this issue. Jewish law (halacha) does not tally with Catholic law when it comes to abortion. Halacha does not advocate abortion on demand, but it does allow abortion under certain circumstances.
I agree, I would be ok with abortion in the case of the mother's health or a very young girl who had been raped.
Jrosemary wrote:The fetus is not a full fledged life per halacha. This is partly based on the Torah, which rules that if two men are fighting, slam into a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty is a fine. But if they cause the woman to die, the penalty is death, as it then becomes an issue of a life-for-a-life. (Exodus 21:22-23)
I disagree with this. I don't see how the verse you cite leads to the idea that the fetus isn't a life, and there are plenty of other scriptures that would support the assertion that a feftus is a life.
Jrosemary wrote:As the Jewish Study Bible notes, "halachic exegesis infers that, since the punishment [for causing a miscarriage] is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."

So there's no rabbinic argument about the life of the mother: if the fetus has put that life at risk, then the mother should defend herself with an abortion.
I have no problem with this, but I do think that the severity of the mother's health should be taken into consideration. If she is simply going to suffer "psychogically because of the stress of raising a baby at such a young age" then I would be aganist that.
Jrosemary wrote:So I do not agree with the Catholic position, which, in my view, is far too absolutist and which does not allow for an abortion to be performed even to save the life of a mother, much less the health of the mother.
I'm not sure if this is true in the Catholic Church. I think the Chruch would permitt it if the mother's life was in cear jeophardy, but I'll have to check my catechism on that.

User avatar
Jrosemary
Sage
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post #6

Post by Jrosemary »

WinePusher wrote:
Jrosemary wrote:The fetus is not a full fledged life per halacha. This is partly based on the Torah, which rules that if two men are fighting, slam into a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty is a fine. But if they cause the woman to die, the penalty is death, as it then becomes an issue of a life-for-a-life. (Exodus 21:22-23)
I disagree with this. I don't see how the verse you cite leads to the idea that the fetus isn't a life, and there are plenty of other scriptures that would support the assertion that a feftus is a life.
It shows that the Torah does not consider a fetus to be a full-fledged life because if it were considered such, the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry would be execution instead of only a fine. The rule is life-for-life. If you cause a pregnant woman to miscarry according to the Torah, you are fined. But if you cause her to die, you are executed. The fetus has a clear-cut lower status than the mother here. Again:
The Jewish Study Bible wrote: . . . halachic exegesis infers that, since the punishment [for causing a miscarriage] is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."
Rashi is the most famous, perhaps, of the rabbis to give this interpretation; as far as I know, it's not disputed in rabbinic Judaism.
Winepusher wrote:I have no problem with this, but I do think that the severity of the mother's health should be taken into consideration. If she is simply going to suffer "psychogically because of the stress of raising a baby at such a young age" then I would be aganist that.
As I said, halachic rulings about what is grounds for abortion when it comes to the mother's health and well-being are more complicated; especially since individual rabbis, as well as individual branches of Judaism, disagree. But in general we're talking about physical issues, psychological issues due to rape, incest, extreme depression, and so forth. But there are no absolutes here. Everything goes case by case.

(And gain, individual Jews may agree or disagree with halachic rulings, depending on how far they follow halacha. Just as individual Catholics may or may not agree with and/or follow their Church's teachings.)

Winepusher wrote:
Jrosemary wrote:So I do not agree with the Catholic position, which, in my view, is far too absolutist and which does not allow for an abortion to be performed even to save the life of a mother, much less the health of the mother.
I'm not sure if this is true in the Catholic Church. I think the Chruch would permitt it if the mother's life was in cear jeophardy, but I'll have to check my catechism on that.
This is from Pope John Paul II--I found it here on Catholic.com.
The boldface is mine:
Catholic.com wrote:Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).
Pope John Paul II said "no circumstance"--which certainly seems to include the circumstance of a mother's life being endangered. The only exception I found was in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which maintains that although you can't perform an abortion to save a mother's life, if the fetus happens to die from some other procedure meant to save the mother's life (and not meant to abort the fetus,) no, ah, Catholic halacha has been broken:
Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life.
To me, that's still an unacceptable absolutist position. No abortion to save the mother's life is permitted--only procedures which are not directly intended to harm the fetus are allowed. Trying find a procedure that doesn't directly attack the fetus but might incidentally destroy it is, in my opinion, a dangerous limitation to put on doctors when they are trying to save the mother.

I personally find that position indefensible--but I'm starting from the (halachically Jewish) position that the life of the mother must come before the potential life of the fetus. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believes the fetus to be a full-fledged life equal to the mother, and therefore will not choose between the two lives, and will therefore not countenance an abortion even to save the life of a mother. I strenuously disagree with the Catholic Church on this issue.

If the quotes I've provided from Catholic.com and the Catholic Encyclopedia are wrong, and the Church does, in fact, permit abortion to save the mother's life, please let me know. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this!

WinePusher

Post #7

Post by WinePusher »

Jrosemary wrote:It shows that the Torah does not consider a fetus to be a full-fledged life because if it were considered such, the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry would be execution instead of only a fine. The rule is life-for-life. If you cause a pregnant woman to miscarry according to the Torah, you are fined. But if you cause her to die, you are executed. The fetus has a clear-cut lower status than the mother here.
How do you reconcile this verse with other verses that seem to indicate that the fetus is a full-fledged life, such as when God told the Prophet Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

I'll also just point out that the verse you cite in Exodus does not explicitly state that the fetus is not a life. It is a verse that some have interpreted to mean that the fetus is not a life, there are other interpretations of that passage as well.
The Jewish Study Bible wrote: . . . halachic exegesis infers that, since the punishment [for causing a miscarriage] is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."
Jrosemary wrote:Rashi is the most famous, perhaps, of the rabbis to give this interpretation; as far as I know, it's not disputed in rabbinic Judaism.
Ok, that's fair. But I think it is an overeach to use this verse to say that the Bible justifies abortion in general. This simply could be an inconsistency in Biblical Law.
Winepusher wrote:I'm not sure if this is true in the Catholic Church. I think the Chruch would permitt it if the mother's life was in cear jeophardy, but I'll have to check my catechism on that.
Jrosemary wrote:This is from Pope John Paul II--I found it here on Catholic.com. The boldface is mine:
Catholic.com wrote:Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).
Then I would disagree with my Church. I think it is permissable to give the option of abortion to a mother whose life would be in clear and present danger if she gave birth.

User avatar
Jrosemary
Sage
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post #8

Post by Jrosemary »

WinePusher wrote:
Jrosemary wrote:It shows that the Torah does not consider a fetus to be a full-fledged life because if it were considered such, the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry would be execution instead of only a fine. The rule is life-for-life. If you cause a pregnant woman to miscarry according to the Torah, you are fined. But if you cause her to die, you are executed. The fetus has a clear-cut lower status than the mother here.
How do you reconcile this verse with other verses that seem to indicate that the fetus is a full-fledged life, such as when God told the Prophet Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."
Jeremiah was not making any halachic pronouncement with that statement. The chapter in Exodus, on the other hand, is a clear-cut halachic pronouncement.
Winepusher wrote:I'll also just point out that the verse you cite in Exodus does not explicitly state that the fetus is not a life. It is a verse that some have interpreted to mean that the fetus is not a life, there are other interpretations of that passage as well.
The Jewish Study Bible wrote: . . . halachic exegesis infers that, since the punishment [for causing a miscarriage] is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."
Jrosemary wrote:Rashi is the most famous, perhaps, of the rabbis to give this interpretation; as far as I know, it's not disputed in rabbinic Judaism.
Ok, that's fair. But I think it is an overeach to use this verse to say that the Bible justifies abortion in general. This simply could be an inconsistency in Biblical Law.
The verse in Exodus is speaking of causing a woman to miscarry accidentally, basically as a result of crashing into her in the middle of a fight. It's not specifically talking about abortion. However, since the verse makes it clear that a fetus does not have the same value as the life of the mother, "halachic exegesis" has inferred that it's acceptable, however tragic, to perform an abortion to save the life (and in some cases the health) of a mother.

Judaism does not rely on Scripture alone when making halachic rulings. G-d may have given us Scripture, but He gave us brains too. So the rabbinic tradition makes halachic inferences from the text--and then rabbis generally argue about those inferences until there's a clear majority position and minority position. However, there's little or no argument in Judaism about this issue. As far as I know, it's universally accepted in Judaism that you can perform an abortion in order to save the life of the mother.

(The Catholic Church, I know, also does not rely on Scripture alone, although their Tradition works a little differently than the rabbinic tradition of Judaism.)
Winepusher wrote:I'm not sure if this is true in the Catholic Church. I think the Chruch would permitt it if the mother's life was in cear jeophardy, but I'll have to check my catechism on that.
Jrosemary wrote:This is from Pope John Paul II--I found it here on Catholic.com. The boldface is mine:
Catholic.com wrote:Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).
Winepusher wrote:Then I would disagree with my Church. I think it is permissable to give the option of abortion to a mother whose life would be in clear and present danger if she gave birth.
I'm happy to agree with you here.

I'm not sure how the Catholic Church could agree, though. It has the virtue of consistency: if it's contending that the life of a fetus is absolutely equal to that of the mother, how can anyone choose between the two lives? :-k

So the Catholic position makes sense to those who view the fetus as a full-fledged life equal to the life of the mother. But the Jewish view is also consistent: that the fetus is a potential life rather than a full-fledged life and that therefore the life of the mother must be the priority.

Jonah
Scholar
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:32 pm

Post #9

Post by Jonah »

It seems to me a question is begged:

What then is the nature of the convergences between Catholic and those elements of Jewish conservatism on abortion?

I think it is this: I think there is a concern that abortion damages humanity as a whole. As a Jew, I would say wanton mindless blanket abortion on demand both damages humanity and is a canary in the coal mine of the damage that has already occurred in terms of arbitrary ad hoc values based on solely personal parameters. If you abort a fetus because its Downs Syndrome, there is a judgement levied upon born Downs Syndrome people. How many disabled people constantly have to defend their right to exist? Against easy abortion. Against a rapidly declining values system in which medical care will be rationed such that the most disabled will be counted as expendable. It is already happening. If one costs too much....you cost too much.

While Catholic language often speaks of abortion in terms of its effect on one single fetus, I am convinced that it more widely assumes a pan-humanist pro life attitude which questions the affect of ongoing wide scale abortion on the human species as a whole. I was impressed once by a Catholic theologian who countered the "potential life" idea with the question "...Uh, like it will potentially develope into something other than a human being?" lol. A Catholic using a Jewish rhetorical device. There might be something in the religious dna history to consider.

User avatar
Jrosemary
Sage
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post #10

Post by Jrosemary »

Jonah wrote:It seems to me a question is begged:

What then is the nature of the convergences between Catholic and those elements of Jewish conservatism on abortion?

I think it is this: I think there is a concern that abortion damages humanity as a whole. As a Jew, I would say wanton mindless blanket abortion on demand both damages humanity and is a canary in the coal mine of the damage that has already occurred in terms of arbitrary ad hoc values based on solely personal parameters. If you abort a fetus because its Downs Syndrome, there is a judgement levied upon born Downs Syndrome people. How many disabled people constantly have to defend their right to exist? Against easy abortion. Against a rapidly declining values system in which medical care will be rationed such that the most disabled will be counted as expendable. It is already happening. If one costs too much....you cost too much.

While Catholic language often speaks of abortion in terms of its effect on one single fetus, I am convinced that it more widely assumes a pan-humanist pro life attitude which questions the affect of ongoing wide scale abortion on the human species as a whole. I was impressed once by a Catholic theologian who countered the "potential life" idea with the question "...Uh, like it will potentially develope into something other than a human being?" lol. A Catholic using a Jewish rhetorical device. There might be something in the religious dna history to consider.
I'm sticking with the Jewish view. To refuse an abortion when a mother's life is at stake--and that's the consequence of your Catholic theologian's 'rhetorical device'--is, in my opinion, monstrous.

It is also, as I said, consistent with Catholic teaching. If you view the fetus as a life that is absolutely equal to the mother's life, then of course it's impossible to choose between the two lives, and impossible to value one life over the other.

The issue of aborting fetuses because of 'birth defects' is one of the major controversies in Judaism. The article I linked to earlier refers to it, and many rabbis do not consider it grounds for abortion. I tend to agree, but I can't claim to have a firm opinion on the question.

Post Reply