Follow-up to Abortion CM Class

I received a follow-up question this past Sunday in Post-Confirmation CM class regarding something that was briefly touched upon during Jean Young's all high school class on 3/15. The question I received which hopefully I paraphrased correctly was:

One thing that Jean said was that the only legal (morally) form of abortion is when the mother's life is in danger. Could you talk more about that?

Because Jean is much wiser than I am, I decided to punt to her =). Here's her response:

First of all, there is a difference between legal vs moral. Abortion is currently legal but it is never moral. The Catholic Church does however permit what is called an indirect abortion. A direct abortion is a direct killing of the embryo/fetus and it is considered as a means in itself or as a means to an end. It is a willful attack on human life and is gravely wrong. An indirect abortion is the unintended killing of an embryo/fetus. It is the evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb and the death of the fetus is not the intended or directly willed result but rather a secondary side effect.

For example, if a mother has cervical cancer and the uterus with a baby in it has to be removed or it will kill the mother, the procedure is allowed because there was no intention to harm the baby. The intention was to remove the organ in order to save a woman's life. Another example is if the embryo implanted in the mother's fallopian tube instead of the uterus and would result in the death of the mother, the fallopian tube can be removed. The removal of the tube does result in the death of the fetus but it happened indirectly. The death of the fetus was not the primary intention of the procedure.

Pope Pius XII summarizes the concept of an indirect abortion saying:

"Deliberately we have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies."

Having said all of this, it is also very important to note that the Catholic Church does not teach that the mother's life is more valuable than a baby's life. Ideally, everything should be done to preserve both the life of the mother and the child. Pope Pius XII makes this point clear when he states:

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child.

It is one of the finest and most noble aspirations of the medical profession to search continually for new means of ensuring the life of both mother and child. But if, notwithstanding all the progress of science, there still remain, and will remain in the future, cases in which one must reckon with the death of the mother, when the mother wills to bring to birth the life that is within her and not destroy it in violation of the command of God - Thou shalt not kill - nothing else remains for the man, who will make every effort till the very last moment to help and save, but to bow respectfully before the laws of nature and the dispositions of divine Providence."
Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951. (15)

The Church does acknowledge that there are situations where sadly either the life of the mother or the baby will be lost but those situations are very rare. It is an extremely rare occurrence where a mother is put in a situation where she has to choose between her life and the baby's life. Many Catholic theologians have given this topic much thought and some may have differing views but the official stance of the Catholic Church is that indirect abortions are morally permissible when the death of the fetus is an unintended consequence of an action intended to save the mother's life.

Hope that helps!

Freedom of Choice Act

For those of you who had been keeping up with the Presidential election or you listened to Fr. Engel's homily this past Sunday, the Freedom of Choice Act has been a big mark against President Obama from the pro-life point of view. Some common (and sometimes overly-simplistic) implications of this bill are that it codifies Roe v Wade into law, will abolish every state and federal limitation on abortion, and even more instigative, will force Catholic hospitals and health-care workers to perform abortions or else risk being shut down or fired.

While there may be elements of truth in those implications, I'm sure things are more complicated than that. I've found that it's all too easy to accept the over-generalized, sometimes fantastical statements we hear because let's face it, we all like a little drama (gossip!) and it seems to make the world make a little more sense with a minimum amount of effort. Diving in to a little more detail is always tough, but I think it makes for a less polarized world.

If you're interested in learning more about FOCA, I came across this article that I feel does a thorough (at least for the lay person) job evaluating what it is and what it isn't. Sure, it's coming from a pro-life perspective, but it digs deeper into what the text is actually saying, not unlike what we do with the inductive method at Bible Study. The middle portion gets a little technical, but if you can get through it, it makes the final summary that much stronger:

Ultimately, the bill should be seen less as a serious attempt at lawmaking than as abortion-war propaganda dressed up as legislation. It’s noteworthy that from a purely political perspective, FOCA is useful to both prolife and prochoice activists. The bill helps prochoicers ward off any perceived threat to the right to abortion-even as, in its ominous shadows, prolifers see new threats to unborn life, and mobilize accordingly.

Go learn.

Bishops can er in teachings?

This article is interesting.

It shows that bishops not in communion with the Pope can make errors in faith and morals! As was demonstrated by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the highest Church authority in Canada for Canadians. And no, it's not because they're Canadians! Even though it was authoritatively given by the rightful shepherds of Canada, it was made in error.

So in 1968, after Pope Paul VI issued Humae Vitae, an encyclical that had authority over the Universal Church that made the final definitive statement on the morality of the use of contraception (if you don't know what it said, basically: artificial contraception is intrinsically evil), the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops got together for a Plenary meeting and issued a statement called now the Winnipeg statement, and in it contained parts (paragraphs 17, 25, 26, 34) that spoke quite contrary to the clear teaching in Humanae Vitae . The statement itself along with highlights.

And now, after 40 years, we can take a look back at the aftermath and the prophecies that Pope Paul VI predicted a whole generation ago. The Canadian Catholic Church has had to recover and even supercede the original Winnipeg statement with one on the 40th anniversary of the prophetic Humanae Vitae.

Read the article!

Hunanae Vitae series (1 of 3)

Humanae Vitae: 40 years later (Part 1 of 3)

Aug. 17, 2008

Value of Life and Christianity: A historical review from Genesis to Today

Bible: (Sacredness of Life)

Genesis: 1^st creation story: Creation of “living” creatures on fifth and sixth days. Special mention of man, not only living, but in “his image.”

Gn 1:28: Command to be “fruitful”! (keep in mind for NT)

2^nd creation story: God’s breath made man into a “living being.”

Gn 2:17: infers that death is a negative.

Gn 3:24: consequence of the fall (death?) was expulsion from Eden and no access to “tree of life.”

Gn 4:1: Attribution of life of man to “the help of the Lord.” (divine aspect)

Gn 4: Death of Abel, protection for Cain: Before the 10 commandments, from text we can see that killing of innocents is wrong and knowable by natural, fallen man.

Even Cain’s protection was from death!

Gn: Abraham’s covenant: clearly values life, seeks to have children and is connected to divine action.

Bible: (Against contraception)

Gn 38(9-10): Judah’s sons and Tamar: Er, Onan, and Shelah

Onanism (pull-out method)

Contrast to Tobit 8:6-8 (Sarah had 7 husbands, all died before consummation)

à Every Sperm is Sacred clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s)

Dt. 23:2: Remember the Covenant and circumcision! Can’t take part!

Mt 8:15-20: Remember “fruit” from Gn 1:28? Maybe a stretch?

Eph 5:21: Subordinate out of reverence for Christ: Reverence for the way God created us? Includes each others’ fertility?

The Church Fathers

(http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp)

The Letter of Barnabas

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus
"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).

Council of Nicaea I

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1 [A.D. 325]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine
"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

John Chrysostom

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid., 62:3).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . ‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. . . . On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse" [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" (Commentary on Galatians 5:12 [A.D. 395]).

Jerome

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Caesarius of Arles
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

Fathers of the Reformation until 20^th century

[Insert: First recorded condom use was ancient civilizations, but it’s unknown whether it was for ritual or contraception. They were made of linen or other material, and is known to be used worldwide. In 16^th century Italy, in a treatise on syphilis, uncontested descriptions of condom use was recorded. In 1605, in a theological publication by a Catholic theologian, the contraceptive use of condoms were documented and condemned as immoral.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms#Before_the_19th_century)

1521, Treatise on The Estate of Marriage, Martin Luther:

Genesis 1:28 is more than a blessing or even a command, but “a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.”

John Calvin argued that these words were the only command of God made before the Fall that still applied after they were expelled and so were unique in power and significance.

Luther in his commentaries emphasized that procreation was the very essence of life before the Fall. Even after the fall, it made the conception of each child an even greater miracle and reflected life back in Eden. And so, he condemned the contraceptive mentality:

“How great, therefore, the wickedness of [fallen] human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together . . . have various ends in mind, but rarely children.”

Luther himself married and had 6 children and served as a model for the Protestant family ethic.

John Wesley, in the late 18^th century also condemned the sin of Onan, and therefore contraception.

“As late as 1923, the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod’s official magazine The Witness accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime” and labeled birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger [foundress of planned parenthood] a “she devil.” Pastor Walter Maier, founding preacher of the long-running Lutheran Hour radio program, called contraceptives “the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a twentieth-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.””

(http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f)

Anglican Communion Lambeth Conference 1908, Resolution 41:

(http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/downloads/1908.pdf)

“The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.”

1930-Forward

Anglican Communion Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 15:

(http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/downloads/1930.pdf)

“Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. “

Voting: For 193; Against 67.

Catholic Church, Encyclical Casti Connubii (54), Pope Pius XI, 12/31/1930

(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html)

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

1958: Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII says rhythm method can be used to limit family sizes for good reaons in an address to Family Campaign and other family associations (1951 from HV reference 29).

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_6.shtml)

Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI, 25^th July 1968

First oral contraceptives appeared in 1951, approved by FDA for use in US on June 23, 1960.

Australia, Germany, Britain, quickly followed, approved within the next year. France approved in 1967.

1963, Pope John XXIII established the Papal Commission for the study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birthrate with 6 European non-theologians. After his death, Pope Paul VI re-established the commission and expanded the membership to a total of 72 from five continents. This commission included 16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women without medical credentials, and an executive committee of 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals.

The main practical issue was the morality of the use of the pill. However, the backdrop was a highly politicized atmosphere of post-Vatican II, and the ongoing struggle about the nature and scope of papal authority. Added to it was the secular Western culture of the sixties where all authority and traditions were challenged, especially in the realm of sexuality: the sexual revolution.

The commission produced a report sent to Pope Paul VI in 1966 that proposed artificial birth control to not be intrinsically evil and that conjugal morality must be measured by the openness to life in the “totality of married life” and not the openness to life of each act of intercourse (Weigel, 207). Of the 72 members, 65 supported this view.

However, there was a second report that was produced that reiterated the Catholic Church’s long-standing teaching against artificial contraception because it violated the natural moral law by separating the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality. It also stated that the Church could not and should not change this position. Only 7 members of 72 supported this view.

Pope Paul VI spent 2 years wrestling with these two papers and their rebuttals. These papers were meant to be seen by the pope only were leaked to the press in 1967 to place more pressure on the Pope. After the leak, everyone had high hopes of a change in the Church’s teaching. The popular view was journalistically dubbed the “Majority report,” and the dissenting view as the “Minority report.”

On July 25^th, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, not ex-Cathedra, but drawing on the competency of the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church to interpret the natural moral law. But the story doesn’t end. In fact, Catholic lay, priests, bishops, and even some cardinals openly voiced opposition to Humanae Vitae.

From: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae) and

Weigel, George, Witness to Hope. pgs 206-208 (http://www.viastuas.net.au/bc/WeigelHV.html)

Today:

Catholics: Catholics still oppose the teaching, both voiced and in practice:

Tablet Survey (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_5.shtml)

The Tablet magazine surveyed 1,500 Mass-goers in England and Wales; 40 years after Pope Paul VI forbad birth control use in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life).

à 82% of people are familiar with the Church's moral teachings but more than half of 18-45 year olds still cohabited before marriage.

à The contraceptive pill is used by 54.5% and nearly 69% had used or would consider using condoms.

à The survey also found that more than half think that the teaching should be revised.

Protestants:

Southern Baptists since 1980 have started to criticize contraception at their annual meetings. Conservative Calvinist publishers are producing books not only criticizing contraception, but also promoting natural family planning. There’s a movement of Missouri Synod Lutherans that is working to overturn their church’s teaching on contraception back to Luther’s view.

(http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f)

In 1998, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary stated that “in an ironic turn, American evangelicals are rethinking birth control even as a majority of the nation’s Roman Catholics indicate a rejection of their Church’s teaching.” Later, in a 2006 New York Times article, he said, “I cannot imagine any development in human history, after the Fall, that has had a greater impact on human beings than the Pill. . . . The entire horizon of the sexual act changes. I think there can be no question that the Pill gave incredible license to everything from adultery and affairs to premarital sex and within marriage to a separation of the sex act and procreation.”

There is even a protestant anti-contraception movement called “Quiverfull” that even outlaws natural family planning! (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262)