Benedict has spoken through his mouthpiece Lombardi. In the words of Tradition in Action Excommunications are out, but Thereputic Abortion is in.
Would a Pontiff appove of this? Would a Pontiff make the h0Ɩ0cαųst in Germany Dogma but not the Resurrection or Immaculate Conception (look at the Cardinals who do not believe and are not chastised.)
And I am confused for being Sedevantist? Which is really what they used to call just being Catholic.  :dancing-banana:
Think again.

With this statement it would seem the word from Rome has been given. In the question of excommunications, they are absolutely no longer allowed. In the matter of abortion, we have a virtual approval of "therapeutic abortion."

As far I have been given to understand, the Church does not approve of direct abortion, but rather allows the death of an unborn child as a secondary effect of a medical operation. The distinction is an important one. For example, if a mother has a deadly cancer of the womb, or a rupture, needs an immediate hysterectomy and is pregnant, and there is no possibility of carrying the child to full term, the Church allows that mother to undergo the hysterectomy, because the PRIMARY motive for the operation is to remove cancer, and the SECONDARY effect is the death of the unborn child. The intention is not to kill the baby, it is a side-effect of the operation. Likewise, I am pretty sure that an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby starts to develop in the fallopian tubes, can be ended by the removal of the fallopian tube in question, but is not an abortion, because it involves an unavoidable medical operation on the mother. Is there anyone here who knows the exact ruling of the Church on this? (And can avoid having a moan about the Pope in doing so?)

Really? Tell that to Gianna Molla, course she was Catholic before before the Notta Popes make everything debatable.

Really? Tell that to Gianna Molla, course she was Catholic before before the Notta Popes make everything debatable.

From the Catholic Encylopaedia, 1917, well before the "Notta Popes" (sic):

"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. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian. "

So so sad.  But on another note one can't prop up the pope as being oh so against population control (in its different forms) when he won't throw bishops out of the Church that publicly support the use of abortion and contraceptives.  He may not support it himself, but he's the "pope" - if he doesn't lay down the law and act upon the Church's and the unborn's behalf it is tacit approval of their position.  And that's just one more proof to me that he is not.

It is the same as always, they say one thing, and that not very clearly. Then when the media reacts they backtrack. Again, not firmly. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. And it never is with Benedict. It is always double-talk, and with that comes confusion in the minds of the people. Not the clarity that the Holy Church has always given us,.
And,as for Christian charity, yes, I do pray for non-Catholics to convert to the One Church Outside of Which There Is No Hope For Salvation. And, I pray for those who are in the Church, but have their eyes blinded by one of the architects of Vatican II who looks great in Traditional Robes.
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

I too am agree with TIA.