Talk:Catholic Church and abortion

Recent changes
you are making deceiving changes to favour a narrative saying the Catholic stance onaborption was always the same. Please revert your changes; I remind you that this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all. I've put in changes that give a fuller picture of the facts, and removed cherry picked WP:UNDUE lines as well as updated lines that lacked context. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Veverve that these edits are highly questionable and first need to be discussed one by one on the talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's go one by one. First edit - the line in the source says "continuous use of contraception" so my edit was to reflect that. The second edit is a line from the source that lists some early noteworthy Bishop Councils that condemned abortion. The third edit adds the most recent statements from the Vatican Council and Donum Vitae on the 'delayed animation' theory. These three edits are simply stating directly relevant facts so shouldn't be controversial. In regards to the fourth edit - I don't think it's appropriate to put "Christianity and Abortion" at the top of this page. If people are coming here it's to read about Catholicism. Also in that edit I removed the vague wording that said "Not only did they not view early abortions as abortions" - who's they, and why is including their random opinions not WP:UNDUE? In regards to the fifth edit, I stated my problem with it in the edit summary - it's making an extreme claim and only cites one source. (I also can't see this source to verify if the citation is even accurate). I think more citations are necessary for that claim than just one. The final edit was just rewording a run-on sentence. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * BlackEclipse, "they" are the people you're writing about, not "random" people. Both of you have valid points - more data on historical statements about abortion can only be useful (if it is well-cited, due, etc.) but it is misleading to remove information about the doctrine of ensoulment and how even when abortion was condemned it was not always seen as murder. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation that your 6th edit was just a minor edit correcting a run-on sentence. Each of the other five edits, however, are problematic either in part or in their entirety for various reasons.
 * The words "continuous, deliberate" that you introduced in the first edit are unnecessary and confusing. The words "could be less sinful than contraception" already imply that it depends on the nature and circumstances of the contraceptive use. (Generally, as I understand it, Catholicism holds that a frequently repeated sin or a sin motivated by a desire to conceal another sin is far worse than a one-time act or a very infrequent act that's not combined with any other sin.) The word "continuous" doesn't apply to most forms of contraception used in ancient times (such as barrier methods); "deliberate" is also a strange word to use, since how can contraception be undeliberate?
 * My only objection to your second edit is that "particularly due to its association with adultery" might be unclear to readers. What is meant (I believe) is "particularly due to the belief that abortion was often motivated by a desire to conceal adultery".
 * Thanks for calling my attention to this part of the article, since the part of the paragraph before your edit (claiming that the before/after "quickening" distinction was "abandoned by the 17th century") is misleading, since the Church did not abandon that distinction until 1869. The source given for that incorrect claim, while reliable for stating current beliefs of the Church, is unreliable for historical beliefs. Concerning your 3rd edit, it jumps chronologically way ahead to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and Donum Vitae (1987); a much better example of the extreme hardening of the Church position on abortion is Casti connubii in 1930, which probably deserves mention in this article.
 * Concerning your fourth edit: (1) There's no reason to remove the reference to Christianity and abortion for further reading, since that article has a section on Catholicism in the context of discussions of other churches' views. (2) The paragraph you omitted about Peter of Spain is well sourced, and there are other sources that also talk about early Catholic authors' recommendation of abortifacient herbs (e.g., "The inclusion in medical writings of new discoveries of birth control agents, such as those by Hildegard of Bingen and William of Saliceto, demonstrates that people continued, in the Middle Ages, to pass along and try new folk remedies.... In William's case, the discovery was the observation that plants of the mint family had the common attribute of causing an abortion. In Hildegard's case, it was the use of tansy for the same." (3) I see no reason to remove the information from studies of Polish public opinion.
 * The statement that until 1869 the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Effraenatam in 1588-1591) did not ban termination of pregnancy from the moment of conception is not an "extraordinary" or "extreme" statement, as you claim. It's a historical fact, and the source given is RS. Given that the Catholic view (like the views of other major religions) was that the embryo did not acquire a soul until several weeks after conception, what is extraordinary and extreme is the claim that the Church has always banned termination of pregnancy from the moment of conception. There are many sources in addition to Noonan that dispute that claim and support the statement that you removed and I restored. For example, "The Augustinian view seems to have prevailed, however, and thus, until the 19th Century, abortion before animation, or "quickening", seems to have been allowed by the Church of Rome." Also, "The bull [Effraenatam of 1588] had a lifetime of about two-and-a-half years and was weak in influence. The succeeding pope countered it and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime, but that abortion could not occur until after the fortieth day, when the fetus was ensouled."
 * NightHeron (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The words "continuous and deliberate" are necessary and not confusing. These are common words that have well understood meanings. I actually think leaving them out causes more confusion because a reader might think the writer was saying that any and all contraception is worse than any and all abortion. Further, when you look at the quote that's provided below the sentence, more context to what the writer meant is given. The quote even goes on to say "daily use of contraception", which is certainly "continuous". You may understand (correctly) that a one time, unknowingly-committed sin is less harmful in Catholicism than a continuous, deliberate sin, but the average reader may not know this, so it's ultimately a good clarification.
 * The source being cited uses these exact words: "due to its association with adultery". I think it's better to just use the source's language than try to make a possible interpretation.
 * "the Church did not abandon that distinction until 1869" I wrote elsewhere that I'd really like to see more sources that say this than just one which I can't even access or read. As a side note, it does make sense that as science and medicine improved by the 1800s, and the Church gained a better understanding of the full development process of an unborn baby's life from conception until birth, that any (alleged) remaining philosophical dispute on the abortion issue within the Church was put to rest. In a similar case, a lot of European doctors still used bloodletting all the way until the 19th century until a better understanding of diseases became widely understood.
 * 1) In regards to the Christianity and abortion tag, it could perhaps be in the "See Also", but it doesn't belong at the top of the page. Catholicism is its own unique Christian branch and people coming to this article will want to read about it specifically, not be railroaded into a broader discussion about other Christian denominations. 2) These lines are given WP:UNDUE attention and are probably covered by WP:FRINGE. There's nothing particularly notable about these two viewpoints other than them being less restrictive toward early abortions, and even the source admits that the idea that Peter of Spain became Pope is unconfirmed at best. Randomly choosing the viewpoints of these two characters, rather than just stating the broader views of abortion in the Church during that time, is why it's WP:UNDUE. It's misleading by structure.
 * If that line is a "historical fact" I'd expect you to be able to produce more than one source making a claim in those words. In fact, I can't even verify those words in the sole source that's being cited for them. If the source doesn't use those words, the line is WP:OR and we shouldn't be drawing our own conclusions from the limited sources on the page. What you could write instead is that "X author(s) believes" that something along those lines was the case. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do "discretionary sanctions" extend to pointing out a "dead link"? I attempted to look at the source for Pope Pius XII's statement on ectopic pregnancies, and I received a 404 error.  I attempted to insert a notation regarding a "dead link" and the sanctions warning popped up.  Not wishing to risk it, I exited the edit mode.  The warning certainly has a chilling effect on anyone who may wish to verify the accuracy of the article and its statements.Alexander Springstea (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Since 0BlackEclipse0 is an SPA that opened 2 days ago (with almost all edits being to this article and United States anti-abortion movement), I have no way of knowing if you're new to Wikipedia or if you simply have multiple accounts. In the former case, please be aware that there's a policy (see WP:ONUS) that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." According to WP:BRDDISCUSS, after edits were reverted, you should not restore them (as you've done), but rather should discuss them here on the talk-page and seek consensus. You should leave time for other editors to respond as well. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy (see WP:EDITWARRING) by self-reverting the edits to the article that you just made. NightHeron (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my first account and the only parts I restored are the ones you stated you didn't have an issue with, or where I modified a line to be more clear in the wording where you were concerned about confusion in the wording. (This account also isn't SPA, I've edited a few other topics as well) Feel free to respond to all of the points I wrote on the other lines when you are able. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. It shouldn't be hard for us to reach agreement on most of the wording issues, perhaps with input from other editors. In the meantime you should not be rushing to make contentious edits, such as reinserting continuous and deliberate. In editing sensitive topics such as abortion, it is particularly important to adhere to Wikipedia policy about reaching consensus before reinserting edits that have been disputed or reinserting them with minor word changes that don't address other editors' concerns.
 * The words "continuous use" do not apply to most forms of contraception, because they are not used uninterrupted in time (from dictionary.com). The accurate words would perhaps be "continual use" (meaning of regular or frequent occurrence), but I think that many people will have no clear understanding of what either word is supposed to mean in this context, and confusion would result. I also don't understand how someone could unwittingly commit the "sin" of contraception. I don't think we need to specify what makes contraception more or less of a sin from a Catholic perspective, especially since it's complicated and is not clearly specified in the sources.


 * I don't think we should use the vague and unclear wording "association with adultery". Perhaps we can find a better source that explains what that means. I suppose you're right that multiple interpretations are possible. One is what I said (the belief that abortion was particularly bad because it was often motivated by a desire to conceal adultery). Another interpretation is the belief that permitting abortion will make people less hesitant to be adulterous, promiscuous, etc.


 * Noonan is a good source for the chronology, and gives the 1869 bull as the first time ensoulment at conception became official Church policy (with the exception of the 2 1/2 year period of the Effraenatam). The Lee-Robertson book I cited before says the before/after quickening distinction was not changed until the 19th century, but without giving an exact date. Even sources like The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, which try to give the impression of a nearly consistent stand against all abortion throughout Church history, have no pre-1869 Church statements defining abortion as termination of pregnancy from the moment of conception. When a book by a leading historian of abortion states a fact, and no source we have is inconsistent with that fact, then we can state it as a fact sourced to the historian. We don't have to say "Noonan believes". NightHeron (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . I think I answered my own question about why the word "deliberate" would be used before "contraception". The definition of contraception in dictionary.com is the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices, so at first the word seemed redundant and confusing. But then I recalled a story that a friend told me. A woman she knew tried for several years unsuccessfully to get pregnant. She had the habit of drinking strong mint tea every day, and only after several years had passed learned that herbs of the mint family have long been known to have contraceptive or abortifacient properties. So she was unwittingly using a contraceptive. She is also Catholic, but clearly her use of a contraceptive was not deliberate and was not sinful according to Catholic belief. So I withdraw my objection to the word "deliberate". NightHeron (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . Please self-revert the replacement of "Catholic politicians" by "self-identifying Catholic politicians", which is in clear violation of [WP:NPOV] because it falsely implies that such politicians are not fully Catholic but only claim to be. Catholics do not stop being Catholics because they disagree with the Vatican's position on abortion (unless they are excommunicated, which few are). A large percent of the Catholic population of many Catholic-majority countries disagree with the Catholic hierarchy's stance on abortion, especially in Catholic-majority countries that have liberalized their abortion laws (such as France, Italy, Ireland, Colombia). Those people are still Catholics, not "self-identifying" Catholics. Editors who support the Vatican's stance might personally view Catholics who disagree as not fully Catholic, but that POV cannot be stated in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "self-identifying". NightHeron (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

0BlackEclipse0 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Edit5001, so I've reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE. --Aquillion (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Pro-life"
could you justify your edits? Also pinging. Veverve (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was correcting the terminology to what I've heard in everything I have read. And I don't understand why people can't just let it be. Endymiona19 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:consensus from what I can see is to use "anti-aborption". Also, please have a look at WP:POV. I see your are very new to WP, I suggest you play the The_Wikipedia_Adventure before you do any further edits. I have also formatted your answer by putting a ":" to indent it. You said it is the term you have "heard in everything", but please start a WP:RFC and give all your arguments and sources if you want to change the consensus. Veverve (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "correcting" and "changing." The key point here is that the choice of words has been debated at length on the Talk page of the article. Per WP:BRD, all editors are allowed to be Bold in their edits, but if Reverted, the next proper step is Discussion, not just try again and again to do the same thing. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Today, you have five times changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" despite warnings here and on your Talk page that this constitutes edit warring. Do not make this change again unless you can achieve a clear consensus here on the Talk page of the article that your change is an improvement to the article (unlikely). David notMD (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * actually.... twice would have consituted edit-warring, five is beyond the pale. I've notified her of Discretionary Sanctions such as the WP:1RR as they apply to this article. One more slip and it'll be a block. Elizium23 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth! A block request has been made and the editor notified. David notMD (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor self-reverted after block notice. David notMD (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you did it again. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Endymiona19 went on to edit war at Abortion and has been indefinitely blocked (as a sockpuppet). David notMD (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Noonan Jr.
I looked through Noonan's book and I do not think what he says matches the claim in the heading. Furthermore, if that is what he meant it would appear inaccurate since there were canon law claims against abortion prior to Pope Sixtus. I don't think this was the case Noonan's notes on page 100 here that there were canon law statements against prior to Pope Sixtus. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * could you summarise or directly quote what Noonan says?
 * As for the canon law, maybe it is a problem of divergence in terminlogy concerning the meaning of "canon law". Veverve (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Page 100 "The canon thus applied the penalty for homicide to contraception and to abortion at any stage of fetal life. How was it reconcilable with Sicut ex? The usual answer was that Si aliquis merely stated that the acts it condemned were to be punished "as homicide." It set the law for all persons. Sicut ex added the extra penalty of irregularity for clerics only in the case of true homicide. 59 Thus the ordinary law of Si aliquis went beyond what was held to be speculatively true by declaring that, for practical purposes of penance, abortion of any fetus must be put on a par with the killing of a man"


 * Page 94 "As the Church emerged as a legal religion and a social force in the fourth century, the sentiments on abortion so uniformly expressed in the first two centuries of Christian life took the form of legislation. There already existed a rule excluding from the Church for life women who conceived in fornication and committed an abortion. The Council of Ancyra in 314, a gathering of a dozen Eastern bishops representing Syria and Asia Minor, denounced such women, who "slay what is generated and work to destroy it with abortifacients"; but "more humanely" the Council reduced their penance to ten years. The Council retained the life penance for voluntary homicide, so that the reduction marked a recognition of mitigating circumstances in the character of the crime, while its gravity was indicated by the still severe penalty imposed. In the West, in some contrast, the movement was toward greater sanctions. At Elvira on the Iberian peninsula, a council held in 305 excommunicated women committing abortion after adultery and declared that they were not to be readmitted even at the point of death. These laws, like the earlier condemnations, made no distinction between the formed and unformed fetus. In the course of the fourth century this distinction, based for Christians on the Septuagint translation of Exodus 21.22, became a focus for analysis. In the East the Apostolic Constitutions, an apocryphal set of apostolic canons from Syria, condemned the killing of a "formed fetus."

Here were the quotes I had in mind. from his article. Also I agree that canon law is not always meant in the past what it means now. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just noticed: why are you answering here for what concerns Catholic Church and abortion?
 * As for the quote, the pages used in the article are 362–364, not the ones you quoted. Veverve (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I might not have been clear, but I did not find those pages (362-364) to support the claim made. Noonan does not say that only during those years was there a canonical law against abortion. Furthermore his other work which I mentioned above points to previous canon law sanctions against abortion. Sorry if my point was not made clear. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is no mention in the source, then I will revert my revert. Veverve (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is. If you would like to check personally here is a link to Noonan's book 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry I thought I was on the talk page for Catholic Church and abortion not this one. I am very sorry for the mistake. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, those things happen. Maybe the conversation should be moved to the Catholic Church and abortion talk page. Veverve (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

looking at your edit: is there a widespread problem of FICTREFs with Noonan? Veverve (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm checking the three citations to Noonan in this article. They're not fictitious references but they're partly wrong. In one case Noonan does say what's in the second part of the preceding sentence, but not what's in the first part. I have both Noonan and Riddle, so I can fix them pretty quickly. Thanks for the ping. NightHeron (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first two references to Noonan (the part about Peter of Spain should have cited Riddle, not Noonan); the third one was correct already. NightHeron (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Permissible Revisions
Is it permissible to point out a "dead link" or will Wikipedia impose sanctions for that? The "dead link" is found is the reference to Pope Pius XII's alleged statement on ectopic pregnancies. When I tried to look at the source, I received a 404 error. Wikipedia needs to realize that threatening sanctions is not likely to fulfill any accuracy-related goal that Wikipedia might have. Why bother? Alexander Springstea (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * hello!
 * Any disruptive edit can get you sanctioned; sanctions tend to be quicker and heavier on topics under discretionary sanctions. Classifying dead links as dead in templates is not discruptive, it is useful and encouraged.
 * I have fixed the dead link for you.
 * I more or less agree: since there was no disruptive edits on this page for a year, maybe it being under discretionary sanctions is no necessary for now. However since the article is about aborption, I guess there is no avoiding the discretionary sanction rule for this article.
 * - Veverve (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Peter of Spain/John XXI
The early writings section includes discussion of Peter of Spain and associates him with both John XXI & the Thesaurus Pauperum. This misleading and should either be reworded or removed. It is not established that Peter of Spain became John XXI nor that Peter of Spain wrote Thesaurus Pauperum.

As the John XXI article states, Peter of Spain is only sometimes identified with John XXI. Furthermore, Peter of Spain also implies that the Peter of Spain the article discusses may differ from the "Pedro Hispano" that wrote the Thesaurus Pauperum.

Finally, the Peter of Spain article on Plato states: "Current research on the identity of Peter of Spain has once again taken up the idea that he must have been a member of the Dominican Order instead of Pope John XXI" and "As yet there is no certainty about whether the Peter of Spain who wrote these treatises [Thesaurus pauperum and other works] is the author of the Tractatus"


 * (reply to unsigned comment) The wording in the article "according to some sources" is accurate and not misleading. NightHeron (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)\


 * Would adding an extended note explaining the argument for and against Peter of Spain being John XXI work ? 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't that off topic for this article? It would fit better in the article Peter of Spain, which at present has only a brief mention of the controversy. NightHeron (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I just thought having a note that explains the argument for and against him being John XXI would allow for people reading this page to get a quick overview of the debate without having to go to his page to read. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent defrocking of fr frank pavone
Should the recent defrocking of fr frank pavone (head of priests for life) be discussed or at least mentioned in this article? I believe that this reflects upon what the Vatican really believes in that action and belief should coincide.

Info and reference:

https://twitter.com/frfrankpavone/status/1605576346440069120

Not sure how a “peter of Spain” reference got here… but what does peter of Spain have to do with the subject heading. I don’t understand. Seems like cruft but won’t remove as I don’t wish to be sanctioned.

47.151.239.57 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Twitter is not a reliable source, but I think PFL and Pavone's ministry are worth a few sentences in the article. Not according to the agenda you seem to have, of course. But it is a good example of a tenuous relationship between church and political cause. Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)