Abortion
Abortion and Excommunication
Introduction: What Is Abortion?
Fr. Ricardo F. Olmedo
The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not specify what should be understood by abortion nor does the 1917 Code.1
Classic medical moral handbooks and manuals of moral theology2 used in seminaries refer to abortion in brief definitions as “the ejection of a live, immature or non-viable fetus from the mother’s womb,” alluding to the conceived fetus that still had not reached sufficient development to live separated from its mother. It was said to be “immature” or “non-viable” when it had not reached seven (others spoke of six) complete months from the beginning of gestation,3 considering it “viable” or “mature” starting at that moment. From then on, any ejection procured to eliminate the fetus was not considered an “abortion” but rather homicide or “acceleration of the birth.”4
Having limited the term, it is now important to clarify the existing kinds of “abortion” to determine when there is moral guilt (sin), when there isn’t, and then to see what consequences the former entails according to the Canon Law of the Church.
A preliminary medical division speaks of procured and spontaneous abortion. The former is desired and deliberate, no matter by what means, and is always objectively a mortal sin. It is also called criminal abortion. In the latter, the will has not intervened, as opposed to the former. It can happen due to an absolutely unwanted accident or can be the work of nature. Then there is no moral guilt; there is no sin.
“Therapeutic” is said of an abortion indicated for medical reasons to save a mother whose life is at risk because of a pregnancy. The therapeutic indication is, without a doubt, the one that causes the greatest perplexity in its discernment from the moral viewpoint. It is the one most used in abortion campaigns, and it formerly roused disputes among moralists.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt at all in asserting that it is morally condemnable, since it simply deals with the above-mentioned procured abortion: a good end does not make an intrinsically evil act good, which is the case in the murder of an innocent being.
Pope Pius XII said regarding this, “to save the life of the mother is a very noble act; but the direct killing of the child as a means to such an end is illicit.”5 And explaining the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” he pointed out:
This principle is as valid for the life of the child as for the mother’s. 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.6
To end the matter concerning this point, let us remember what was said more than half a century ago in the medical sphere itself:
Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy or is unwilling to use them....Therapeutic abortion, by implying the direct destruction of a human life, is contrary to all the rules and traditions of good medical practice. From the very beginning, this approach to the problem is anti-scientific.7
The final division of interest is “direct” and “indirect” abortion. “Direct” abortion is sought in itself, and so it enters the first assessment of procured abortion (mortal sin). “Indirect” abortion, however, is not directly desired, but rather rejected in itself. But it is brought about as a consequence of another desired act that is good in itself or indifferent, which has a good end. It is permitted to do this according to the general principle of actions with a “double effect” or of “indirectly voluntary actions.” Fr. Royo Marin explains it like this:
With a serious proportionate reason it is licit to cooperate indirectly in the death of the innocent, that is, to do or to omit something of itself good or indifferent, from which, unintentionally, ensues the death of the innocent. [This] is a simple application of the law of indirectly voluntary actions. Accordingly, when two effects follow an action that is licit in itself, a good effect—the most immediate one—and an evil effect—the most remote one, or at least simultaneous to the good effect—it is licit to attempt the good effect and permit the evil one if there is a serious proportionate reason, that is, if the immediate good effect more than compensates for the remote evil effect. In the concrete case concerning us, the greater good that immediately follows the licit action would be the proportionate reason and not through the death of the innocent being.8
Pope Pius XII himself would say in this regard:
If...the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act...which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life, [and] the operation can be lawful, ...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.9
a necessary observation
The definition we have given of “abortion” corresponds to what nature demonstrates and teaches. It can be said that it is true and without error. Thus, can it be modified? This subject acquires importance with regard to the moral and canonical responsibilities proceeding from this act. And such a modification has occurred de facto and de jure since the Second Vatican Council.
In the Church’s punitive sphere, “at least regarding latæ sententiæ or ferendæ sententiæ penalties,10 the ecclesiastical offense does not exist if there is no grave sin,”11 and the “quality” or kind of offense is established depending on the purpose of the law that is violated12 analogously to how sins are specified according to moral doctrine.13
This means that in the Church’s sphere, offenses are established by type according to the type of moral good the particular law protects.14
In the case concerning us, the offense of “abortion” is formed as such depending on the protected good: the life of an unborn child, incapable of surviving as a result of its non-viability or the insufficient organization of its body. Its direct and voluntary elimination was defined as abortion and that was the specific offense penalized. But if it dealt with the elimination of a viable unborn baby, that is to say one that had sufficient organic organization to survive, there was no offense of abortion.
However, some years after the new Code of 1983 was sanctioned, there was a consultation about the reach of the term “abortion” dealt with in Canon 1398. The Pontifical Commission for Authentic interpretation of the Code of Canon Law then also extended the concept to “the voluntarily obtained death of the fetus itself in any way and at any time from the moment of conception.”
In 1995, John Paul II himself15 would say more explicitly: “Procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.”
As can be observed, there has been an “amplification” of the concept of abortion, which now includes the expulsion and death of the child at any time in its gestation, from conception until birth, and also therefore the actions comprising the crime of abortion.
In the legislative order, the Church has the authority to determine the object constituting a criminal figure, because she has that power in the government of the Church, and the right to punish conduct that she deems should be punished in the moral order such as in the present case. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like excessive verbosity but rather an error to amplify the concept in this way, by including in the offense of “abortion” what by nature and definition it is not.
In the moral order the distinction among acts or sins exists depending on how their objects are formally different. It is known that objects are distinguished in the moral order, in their “esse moralis,” by reason of their particular repugnance to the eternal law or to right reason.
In the case concerning us, this distinction is essential and is given in the difference already pointed out under the concept of “immature,” which is applied to whoever cannot subsist alone, and the concept of “mature,” to whoever can do so. In the first case, he will necessarily die. In the second, he can live since his body is sufficiently organized to do so (without detriment to the care that an infant of that age obviously requires). This points out a different responsibility and moral guilt (although both are certainly very grave) and it seems that they cannot be identified under the sole figure of “abortion.”
The first case is a kind of homicide different from the second one... Therefore, our criticism is not of “being non-verbose/lacking in detail,” but of error in this modification, causing confusion and conflict, as seen in the chart above.
the pain of excommunication for those who abort
Accepting, then, the extent of the concept of the crime of abortion to what has been pointed out and for the reasons shown, let us see the consequences in the ecclesiastical punitive sphere.
Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral maliciousness of all procured abortions. This teaching certainly has not changed, and remains invariable. Direct abortion—that is, when desired as an end or a means—is gravely contrary to the moral law.
“Thou shalt not kill the embryo by abortion, thou shalt not kill the new born” (cf. Didache or Teaching of the Apostles 2:2; Epistle of Barnabas 19:5; Epistle to Diognetus 5,5; Tertullian, Apol. 9).
The Fathers of the Church, for example, St. Epiphanius, St. Basil, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and many others as well, have always held it as simply murder.
In 1580, Sixtus V, in the Constitution known as Effranatam, imposed the pain of excommunication for procured abortion at whatever time it was done and dispensing with whether theoretically the embryo was supposedly alive or not, or whether it was procured under the medical excuse of the mother’s health.
In 1679 Innocence XI again condemned procured abortion.
In other words, besides always considering it a mortal sin, it was held to be a crime16 that carried with it the pain of “latæ sententiæ” excommunication. That is, whoever carried out a voluntary abortion was excluded from the Church and from the communion of the faithful automatically and for the mere fact of carrying it out and without the necessity of any ecclesiastical authority’s intervention or official or private declaration from anyone.17
In order for it to be a crime of abortion, Canon Law requires besides that the murderous act be consummated, or as is said in canonical language, “effecto secuto.” That is to say, that the abortion was really done; its attempt is not sufficient.
What conditions are needed to incur in this pain of “latæ sententiæ excommunication”?
According to the rules in force, the configuration of the criminal action of “abortion” is as follows:
a) It must be a procured abortion. Therefore natural, spontaneous or involuntary abortion is excluded.
b) It must also be an abortion directly caused, with deceit; that is, an action wanted as an end or a means to an end and not a mere guilty action through omission of correct carefulness.
c) What the “serious” reasons are that bring one to do such an act do not matter, whether economic, eugenic, social, or loss of a good reputation.
d) It does not matter how it is done, that is, by techniques of surgical, mechanical, pharmaceutical intervention, etc.18
e) “It makes no difference how long the length of gestation is” (from conception to birth); that is, from the very second when the egg has been fertilized, even though embedding of the embryo has still not taken place, and until the very instant of birth. This means that even if during childbirth elimination of the baby was intended, an abortion would be committed, bringing canonical infringement on one’s self.
In order to incur the pain of latæ sententiæ, individuals are required to:
a) be of adult age19 (18 years old); however, criminal responsibility begins at 16 years old,20 so that from that age till 18, although excluded from the pain of latæ sententiæ,21 the pain of ferendæ sententiæ and even of excommunication could be imposed;
b) have carried out the act with full knowledge (on the part of the intelligence) and with full awareness (on the part of the will) that it deals with a serious sin and that there is a canonical punishment.
Also, all those incur the same pain of latæ sententiæ excommunication who in one way or another have been the efficient cause of the abortion. Either they procured it as perpetrators, co-perpetrators, or they cooperated in procuring it (for example: the mother herself, husband, doctors, midwife, advisers, etc.), or have acted indirectly as necessary accomplices (those without whose help the crime could not have been committed),22 physical, and simply moral accomplices, the person who ordered it, etc. A person not subject to the pain of latæ sententiæ for this crime includes:
a) a person who acted coerced by violence or through grave fear
b) a person who without negligence was ignorant of the penalty against abortion,
c) a person who lacked the use of reason.
Lifting the pain of excommunication is not reserved to the Holy See, therefore it can be done by:
In urgent cases where it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin (Canon 1357, §1), a confessor can, in the internal sacramental forum, remit the punishment, with the obligation imposed on the penitent of making recourse within a month to the competent superior and the obligation of obeying his mandates (Canon 1357, §2).
1 The 1917 Code, Canon 2350, says: “§1. Those who procure an abortion, including the mother, incur latæ sententiæ excommunication reserved to the Ordinary if the abortion is performed; and if they are clergy, they should be removed besides.” The 1983 Code, Canon 1398, says: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
2 See Compendium of Pastoral Medicine by Dr. Albert Niedermeyer Herder, 1961), p. 230; Prümmer, Manuale Theologiæ Moralis (Herder, 1961), II, 137; H. Noldin, Summa Theologiæ Moralis (Herder, 1951), II, 342, etc.
3 Modern definitions shorten the term to 22 weeks and thus assert that abortion is “the death of the product of conception before the 22nd week of life in the maternal uterus.” Modern techniques have shortened the terms of non-viability (that is, the impossibility of surviving outside the mother’s womb) more and more. In Orlando, Florida, the case is registered of a girl who was born [and survived] at 21 weeks (four and a half months) after being conceived. Nowadays, viability depends greatly on the doctors’ and nurses’ ability and on having adequate technical support. It is said that perhaps in a short time, survival will be achieved in infants born after only ten to twelve weeks of gestation in the mother’s womb.
4 It is licit for a proportioned just cause. The Holy Office said so in 1898: “Acceleration of the birth is not in itself illicit, as long as it is done for right reasons and at such a time and in such a manner that the life of both the mother and the fetus is provided for according to ordinary contingencies.” (Dz. 1890b).
5 Allocution addressed to the Conference of Catholic Obstetricians on October 29, 1951.
6 Allocution to the “Congress of Large Families,” November 28, 1951.
7 As expressed by Dr. Roy J. Heffernan at the 1951 American College of Surgeons meeting (quoted by Fr. Domingo Basso in his work “Nacer y Morir con Dignidad—Bioética,” [Being Born and Dying with Dignity—Bioethics], Ed. CAC and Depalma, 1993, p. 378.)
8 Complete Works, No. 562
9 Allocution to the “Congress of Large Families,” November 28, 1951
10 That is, automatically, or what is imposed after canonical judicial proceedings.
11 Fr. Juan B. Ferreres, S.J., Instituciones Canónicas (Subirana, 1932), p. 448.
12 Canon 2196.
13 In the sphere of Canon Law, “the quality of the offense is equivalent to the designation of the moral kind of act,” P. M. Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici (Editorial Marietti, 1948), Vol. IV, No. 1643, page 12, note 2.
14 Eduardo Regatillo in Institutiones Iuris Canonici (Ed. Sal terrae, 1949), No. 874, p. 360.
15 Encyclical Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II, No. 58.
16 In Ecclesiastical Law, a “crime” is “the external and morally imputable violation of a law to which at least an indeterminate canonical sanction is attached,” and canonists add that “all crime is a sin, but not all sin is crime.”
17 Excommunication is a censure by which someone is excluded from the communion of the faithful and has, according to the old Code, the following effects:
For priests, and in regard to the acts of power through Holy Orders: l He cannot perform or administer the sacraments or sacramentals if he is not needed (canon 2261, § 1). l He cannot be advanced in orders (canon 2265, § 1, No. 3). For everyone (priests and lay people): l He cannot receive the sacraments (canon 2260, § 1). l He cannot attend divine offices, but can attend divine preaching (canon 2259, § 1). l He is deprived of indulgences, suffrage, public prayers (canon 2262, § 1). As far as rights, privileges, and acts in the Church’s sphere: l He cannot fill an office or use privileges (canon 2263). l He cannot carry out legitimate acts (canon 2263). He elects, presents and names illicitly (canon 2265, § 1, No. 1). l He cannot obtain offices or pensions (canon 2265, § 1, No. 2). l He can be denied the right to act (canon 1628, § 3). In the New Code, the effects are foreseen in canon 1331: “1. An excommunicated person is forbidden: 1. to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever; 2. to celebrate the sacraments and sacramentals and to receive the sacraments; 3. to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance. §2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender: 1. who wishes to act against the prescript of § 1, n. 1, must be prevented from doing so or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this; 2. invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm § 1, n. 3; 3. is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted; 4. cannot acquire validly a dignity, office or other function in the Church; 5. does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, or any function, or pension which the offender has in the Church.”
18 Therefore, not only surgical operations are included, but also any type of means (homemade or otherwise) that are used with the purpose of suppressing the conceived life, any action by the mother or third parties (for example: horseback riding, pressure or blows on the womb, etc.) carried out with that intention, craneotomy, “suction” of the unborn baby, sodium chloride (salt) injections, poisoning with a poison of any origin whatsoever (plant, animal, chemical, etc.), the so-called D & X abortion by “dilation and extraction,” hysterotomy and cutting the umbilical cord, the application of medicines such as “prostaglandin,” etc. Anti-conception pills and/or the so-called “morning after pill,” which are abortive, imply particular difficulty because of the need to know of the pregnancy that the person who carries out such actions should have. We cannot solve this question at this time.
19 In the Catholic Church according to the new code, an adult is a person who has completed the eighteenth year of age (Canon 97, §1).
20 Canon 1323, n. 1.
21 Canon 1324, § 3.
22 For example, the owners or directors of an abortion clinic or of a hospital that lends its facilities with full awareness of what they authorize.
23 Canon 1324:
§ 1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offense was committed: l 1. by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason; l 2. by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or another similar culpable disturbance of mind; l 3. from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of the will, and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily; l 4. by a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age; l 5. by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the derelict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls; l 6. by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another; l 7. against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person; l 8. by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in Canon 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present; l 9. by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept; l 10. by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.
§ 2. A judge can act in the same manner if another circumstance is present which diminishes the gravity of a delict.
§ 3. In the circumstances mentioned in § 1, the offender is not bound by a latæ sententiæ penalty.
Moral theology and abortion
Fr. Fernando Altamira
This article...
...is mainly based on a Spanish theologian, a good priest, the late Fr. Antonio Royo Marin, O.P., in his Moral Theology for Laymen, (B.A.C. Ed., 1957). This was undoubtedly a great book. After the Second Vatican Council (which ended in 1965), Father Royo made modifications to this work, partially changing and adapting his original text according to the theological “aggiornamento” that followed. Then, leaving aside some points of the Catholic teaching of all time, he made several changes and additions (viz. referring to Limbo). There are suspicions, and some people have even said it, that he did these things obligated by his superiors and against his personal will.
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SOME TERMS
- The pregnancy is “normal” when it is established in the uterus or womb, in the endometrium. If established in another place (namely in the Fallopian tubes, abdomen, or next to the ovaries) it is called an extrauterine or ectopic pregnancy.
- The baby in the mother’s womb is considered mature or “viable” if it can already live separated from the mother; that is, after the seventh complete month, although there are cases when development has been possible in the incubator from the sixth month.
- “Abortion” is the ejection of the fetus from the mother’s womb. It can be “spontaneous” (due to natural failure, without the mother’s or any other person’s will), or else “provoked” if voluntarily caused. Others distinguish the ejection of an already mature baby as “acceleration of the birth.”
- “Embryotomy” or “craniotomy” is an abortive operation in which the baby is destroyed in the mother’s womb and is extracted in pieces. There are many other abortion techniques.
- “Cesarean section” consists of opening the mother’s womb to extract the baby.
- “Symphysiotomy” is the section of the symphysis pubis, that is, the interarticular cartilage that joins both pubis bones together, to extract the baby when natural birth is impossible due to the narrowness of the pelvis.
Abortion is an aberration. Death “caused” to the baby in his mother’s womb! It is another case of the “death of the innocent,” and in fact the most innocent and undefended ones of all. It is well to consider some points of moral theology on this question.
Human behavior, our miseries, original sin and the tendencies toward evil remaining in us often push us. So we consent and do evil actions. It is this whole working of the law of the flesh that militates against the Law of the Spirit. Some sins mark the person and leave wounds that are difficult to heal.
God’s daughter, in her misery, can come to consent to and carry out the death of the child in her womb. Maternity is a gigantic gift from God; every daughter of God is so dedicated to being a mother, so dedicated to her child, that it is hard to understand how she can manage to commit abortion. Nevertheless, it happens.
God in His mercy never fails to forgive any sin. As a priest, as His instrument, one finds himself in the situation of hearing about the committing of this sin in confession. A most grave deed, without a doubt, but God’s forgiveness has no limits. One gives absolution. This gives peace to the soul who did it, but “there are sins that mark consciences.”
Often, years after this fall, souls in this situation approach the confessional and manifest the need to beg God’s forgiveness again for that sin. They tell the priest that they know that God has already forgiven them, and we also tell them so. But they tell us that they still have something inside that will not heal: “So strong is the maternal instinct God has given them.”
It’s because there is damage, there are sins that do not allow the possibility of reparation. The dead child does not come back. Once someone told us, “When I see my other two children, when I see the youngest who is eight years old, I think that the other one should be home with his brother, playing with his brother and that he would be six already. Then I despair, and anguish enters my heart.”
In the case of abortion, we priests usually advise “in inappropriate and imperfect reparation,” that they participate in the fight for the protection of the unborn, becoming bitter enemies of abortion and everything related to it (anti-conception) and great defenders of the large family, helping (if they can) institutions that strive for children’s welfare, orphanages, children’s hospitals, poor families with children, schools, etc.
But now we must return to the work at hand: “Moral Theology and Abortion.” The subject of this article will be limited to study and reflection. This includes not only the main topic, but also other very delicate connected issues, such as ectopic pregnancy and certain problems with tumors in pregnancy.
“THE UNBORN CHILD”
All babies conceived in the mother’s womb have the right to be born, and in correlation their birth is not to be prevented. This, of course, is a natural right and no State or person has the power to act against it.
The precise moment is under debate when the body receives its soul, its life or its “form.”
The most common opinion is that the soul is infused by God at the very moment of conception or fertilization. That is, when the masculine gamete unites to the feminine gamete. To this end let us recall that Jean Rostand, Nobel Prize in Medicine, among others, taught that life begins at conception.
Aristotle, St. Thomas, and the majority of medieval theologians sustained that at the beginning of cellular reproduction, the human embryo possessed only a vegetative form or soul, that this vegetative soul was successively replaced (while growing in cellular development) by an animal form, and finally by a rational soul infused by God at the moment when the embryo was fit to unite substantially to it.
The Church has not decided anything dogmatically, but after what we have described above, she teaches the following in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Care should be taken that aborted fetuses, at whatever time they are born, if they are certainly alive, be baptized absolutely; if there is doubt, under condition after [being born]” (Canon 747).
The same clear terms are not used in the corresponding 1983 Code, nor with the same forcefulness: “If aborted fetuses are alive, they are to be baptized insofar as possible” (Canon 871).
Although there can be arguments about the precise moment when the soul is infused, which moreover is impossible to measure, being spiritual, it is an indisputable fact that a human person is dealt with here, in fact or in the near making. He therefore possesses all his natural inherent rights. Among these the right to life occupies first place, or the right to be born.
If the supernatural order is added to what was said in the above paragraph, something even more important is considered, the right to be baptized to reach and be able to go to heaven. The Church teaches us that children who die without baptism cannot go to heaven, but will go to Limbo.
Due to these considerations, it is concluded that unborn babies are the most defenseless, most innocent human beings and the most worthy of protection. For, because of their condition, not only their natural life is in play, but also their supernatural life.
MORAL PRINCIPLE:
ANY ABORTIVE ACTION OR OPERATION, THAT IS, ANY ACTION DIRECTLY KILLING THE UNBORN CHILD, IS ALWAYS A VERY SERIOUS SIN AND CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY P RETEXT.
The reason is quite clear, for it deals with killing a completely innocent and defenseless human being. The direct action that seeks to kill the innocent is never licit: the innocent being is to be protected, not killed, even if saving the mother, a nation or the whole world depends on it. A direct, “qualified,” “aggravated” homicide would be committed. The seriousness of this true murder is greater against the natural law for its abuse of strength and immense cowardliness in dealing with a defenseless being. It is an immense injustice—based on evidence—against an innocent being, the most innocent of all. Seriousness is also greater against the supernatural law for dealing with a baby who dies without Baptism and is deprived of Eternal Life.
FALSE ARGUMENTS ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY THIS SIN AN D CRIME
(I) The life of the mother should be preferred.
This is a case of the false doctrine of the possibility of choosing the lesser evil.
“In the case of two evils, the lesser one must be chosen. However, there are cases when, if an abortion is not done, the mother and the child will die irretrievably. Therefore the death of the child is preferable to save the mother by performing the abortion.”
(II) The life of the mother
should be preferred.
“If the child puts the mother in danger of death or in extreme necessity, he can be considered an unjust aggressor, against whom one can react in legitimate defense, even killing him through abortion.”
(III) The life of the mother
should be preferred.
“The life of the mother is more necessary because of the need to care for the other children that have already been born. It can be supposed that the unborn child cedes his right for the good of his siblings and his parents’ happiness.”
Otherwise anyone could kill himself without sinning (suicide) or could kill anyone else who requested it (euthanasia). Besides, what makes this more absurd is that the child cannot even make an act of the will (affirmative or negative) in his state of life.
(IV) The life of the mother
should be preferred.
“If the abortion is not carried out, the child will die anyway (without baptism), and the mother too.”
On the other hand, the administration of baptism should always be endeavored, according to what Holy Church has established. And if the baby should die without it—or if both should die—it would absolutely be a misfortune, a very sad one as well, but not a sin. Nor would it be a crime, as in the case of provoking an abortion.
Therefore, it is never licit to kill the child, not even to save the life of the mother, even when it is certain that if not done, the mother will die together with him.
The lives of both should be attended to, even if everything has an unfortunate outcome. For, one thing is the inculpable death of both in spite of the attempts carried out to save them. And another thing is murder, even if it kills only one of them. That always deserves God’s condemnation.
MORAL PRINCIPLE:
DIRECTLY INTENDED OR PROVOKED ABORTION IS NEVER LICIT, NOT EVEN IN CASES OF ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES OR EXTRAUTERINE GESTATION.
The reason is still the same: an innocent being can never be killed, no matter what cause is cited.
Here are some practical applications:
It is never licit to provoke an abortion, even if it is to save the life of the mother.
For the same reason, the so-called “therapeutic abortion” which the doctor intends against the child for putting the mother’s health at risk and the “eugenic abortion” (the name given to the abortion of a child detected as having malformations already in the mother’s uterus) are absolutely and always immoral (mortal sins).3
The doctor can practice any operation directed towards saving the life of the mother or of the child (for example, when the Fallopian tube ruptures in an ectopic pregnancy located there), but never any action whatsoever whose aim is to end the life of the child.
A doctor requested to carry out such direct abortions, or any other kind, should always refuse.
The voluntary sin of abortion is punished by ipso facto excommunication: “A person who procures a completed abortion, incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication” (Canon 1398). “Necessary” accomplices or assistants incur the same penalty (Canon 1329).
IMPORTANT MORAL CASES
Ectopic or Extrauterine Pregnancy or Gestation
This happens about 3 percent of the time.
It can be tubal, ovarian or abdominal. The majority do not reach complete gestation, although some possibility exists in ovarian and abdominal pregnancies.
Let us begin by pointing out that it is not licit under any pretext to kill the child gestating under these conditions.
The only licit, moral action before God is:
This operation consists of transferring the child who has implanted in the incorrect place (ectopic pregnancy) to the normal place in the endometrium of the uterus or womb to reach full development there. In modern times, this operation has begun to be practiced successfully, attending very well to both the life of the mother and of the child.
“Indirect abortion” consists of the doctor’s immediate intervention once the “fetal sack” ruptures. At this moment the child in gestation separates from his vital connections and becomes detached. The hemorrhaging produced puts the life of the mother in danger. In this state one can intervene and extract the already detached child and should endeavor to baptize him immediately to achieve his eternal salvation.
Regarding the time when the “outcome” occurs, for example in cases of ectopic pregnancy located in one of the tubes, rupture takes place during the first weeks of pregnancy, for tubal diameter is quite small, perhaps comparable to a little finger, and does not allow much more time.
It is simply an acceleration of the birth, which is licit for good reasons. The Holy Office, speaking on this subject, responded as follows in 1902:
With respect to time, the orator is reminded...that no acceleration of the birth is licit unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which, in the ordinary course of events, the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered. (Dz. 1890 c)
Direct action against the child in ectopic gestation would only be licit and moral before God when there is full certainty that his death has already occurred within the maternal womb, since then it is clearly not a case of killing him.
What should be done in the case of tumors during pregnancy?
Of course, it is necessary to wait as long as possible to let the fetus become viable, if possible. In this case acceleration of the birth can be proceeded to licitly. If this is not possible, it is licit to surgically remove a tumor or cyst that is mortal for the mother, even if the gestating baby is included or enveloped in it. Nevertheless, baptism should be endeavored immediately after extraction from the tumor.
What if there is any doubt whether it is a malignant tumor or an ectopic gestation?
Theologians are divided when in doubt whether it is a tumor or a child in ectopic gestation, if waiting any longer is impossible without risk to the mother.
For some moralists confronting doubt, it is licit to extirpate it as a malignant tumor even though later it is verified to be a child in gestation. The action on him would be indirect; there would be no intention of causing his death, but rather of acting against the supposed tumor. It would be the application of an indirect voluntary act. However, obviously, his baptism must be attempted immediately in case it is a child.
Other theologians consider, not without grounds, that the operation cannot be performed because a) one cannot act while having a practical doubt about the licitness of the act; and b) because it is not licit to proceed, even indirectly, against the life of a probable child in gestation. Such a life is at a disadvantage compared to the mother due to the fact that he is not baptized and risks his eternal life. Therefore, the proportionality that the indirect voluntary act requires would not be given: “a serious reason proportionate to the evil that can indirectly occur.” What is said here can have more applications.
MORAL PRINCIPLE:
FOR SERIOUS PROPORTIONATE REASONS IT IS LICIT TO TOLERATE AN ABORTION TO OCCUR INDIRECTLY WHEN CARRYING OUT AN ACTION THAT IS “GOOD IN ITSELF OR INDIFFERENT.”
For example: to cure a mother’s serious illness which puts her life at risk, a medicine can be given or a surgical operation can be performed that tends toward curing that illness, although involuntarily causing the death or unintended ejection of the child. Let us remember the conditions that make it licit:
This is the moral, theological subject matter that we wanted to put forward. Perhaps it could be studied more in depth.
The reality of abortion has been described and some experiences from pastoral theology were given at the beginning by way of introduction.
This is the way today’s world is. God says, “I want many large families. I want many children in the home. The primary and main end of Matrimony is procreation.” And man says, “I want Matrimony only for enjoyment. Children are a nuisance and a problem. We’ll have only two at the most and then...”
...And then sin to prevent children, fostering anti-conception or “family planning” as they say in some places. From anti-conception to abortion there is but one step, and even if there wasn’t, planning is already in itself an absolutely reprehensible act, a mortal sin that impairs sanctity and the purpose of Matrimony.
Finally, may God let these words serve to defend the unborn child! May God make these words serve as a support and stimulus so that in our country and everywhere there will be very many large families with many, many children.
God gave me the grace to begin my priesthood in a place saturated by large families, which was the rule, with many sacrifices for those families. Still, it was the rule, to the point that someone jokingly said, “Father, I am one of those people here who has few children. I have only eight.” There were several families with ten children, several had eleven, one had thirteen. So many children! What a beautiful thing!
This is what St. Padre Pio of Pietrelcina had to say
“ABORTION IS NOT ONLY HOMICIDE, BUT ALSO SUICIDE”
Many people, confronted with the sin of abortion, confuse the law of the Nation—that permits and assists the interruption of pregnancy—with the law of God, where provoked abortion is always a sin against the Fifth Commandment. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:21-22) defends life independently of the human being’s age in years, months or days.
The interruption of pregnancy always creates trauma, a drama. It cannot be denied that what the woman lives through—who unfortunately doesn’t really want to be a mother—also concerns all those close to her, whose strong emotive reaction tends to justify such a great error. Confessors know those influences well, although they can never justify the suppression of a life.
PADRE PIO’S TESTIMONY
Padre Pellegrino asked St. Padre Pio one day, “Padre, this morning you denied absolution to a lady who confessed to an abortion. Why were you so rigorous with this poor unfortunate woman?”
Padre Pio answered, “The day people, frightened by the economic boom, physical damages or financial sacrifices, lose the horror of abortion will be the most terrible day for humanity. For, precisely on that day, they will have to show that they detest it.”
Then he took hold of his interlocutor’s habit with his right hand and put his left hand over his heart, as if he wanted to grab his heart, and said in an urgent tone, “Abortion is not only homicide but also suicide. And to these people we see on the point of committing two crimes...do we want to show our faith? Do we want to save them or not?”
“Why suicide?” asked Padre Pellegrino.
Full of holy anger, compensated by much sweetness and goodness, Padre Pio explained, “You would understand this suicide of the human race if with the eye of reason you could see the ‘beauty and joy’ of the earth populated by old men and depopulated by children, burnt as a desert. If you thought it over, then you would understand that abortion is even more serious. Abortion also mutilates the life of the parents. I would like to cover those parents with the ashes of their destroyed fetuses, to nail them with their responsibilities and stop the possibility of recurring to ignorance. The remains of a provoked abortion are not buried by false religiousness. It would be an abominable hypocrisy. Those ashes should be thrown at the murderous parents’ elegant faces. If I thought they were of good faith, I would not feel implicated in their crimes. You see, I am not a saint, but I never feel so close to sainthood as when I pronounce these words, undoubtedly a bit virulent, but just and useful, against those who commit this crime. I am certain that God approves of my rigor since, after those sorrowful struggles against evil, He always gives me—or rather let us say He imposes on me—moments of marvelous tranquility.”
Padre Pio observed to Padre Pellegrino that “if erroneous ideas are not eradicated from the minds of those who provoke abortions, it is useless to punish them with the rigors of the Church.” He argued, “By defending the arrival of children into the world, my rigor is always an act of faith and hope in our encounters with God on earth. Unfortunately, as time goes by, the battle gets tougher than we are. But we must fight anyway, because in spite of the certainty of a defeat on the map, our battle has the guarantee of a true victory: that of the new earth and the new heavens.”
Confronted with such considerations, what reasons could there be to justify such a great sin? It would also be a serious misdeed for the Church to cooperate with an abortion.
“GO AWAY, ANIMAL! GO AWAY!”
In the sacristy, in front of the confessional where Padre Pio received penitents, Mario Tentori waited for his turn seated on a bench. As he was examining his conscience, he heard Padre Pio shout, “Go away, animal, go away!” The Saint’s words were addressed to a man who had knelt at his feet to make his confession and who left the confessional humiliated, very moved and confused. The next day Mario got the train in Foggia to return to Milan. He sat in a compartment where there was only one other traveler, who began to look at him, visibly showing a desire to start a conversation. Finally he got the courage and asked him, “Weren’t you in the sacristy yesterday at San Giovanni Rotondo to go to confession to Padre Pio?”
“Yes, I was!” answered Tentori.
The other man continued, “We were seated on the same bench. My turn was just before yours. I am the one who Padre Pio threw out calling me an ‘animal.’ Do you remember that?”
“Yes,” Mario stated.
The traveling companion continued, “Being outside of the confessional, perhaps none of you heard the words that motivated the Padre’s reaction. Well, Padre Pio told me, and I quote, ‘Go away, animal, go away, because you have had abortions three times in agreement with your wife.’ Do you understand? Padre Pio told me, ‘You have aborted!’ He addressed me, because the initiative to abort always came from me.”
And he broke into sobbing, expressing his sorrow that way, as he himself asserted, and the will not to sin again with the firm determination to return and meet with Padre Pio to receive absolution and change his way of life.
Padre Pio’s rigor had saved the life of a father who, after denying life to three infants, was in danger of losing his own soul for all eternity.
RESPECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MATRIMONY
What contributes to depopulating the earth, as our Saint says, which is “burnt like a desert” since children’s smiles are no longer seen there, is the decrease in the birth rate, chosen too often for selfish reasons or objective financial problems. Medical concerns also contribute to cause aging in the earth’s population.
One of Padre Pio’s spiritual children confessed to us, “During the second confession I made to him—he had sent me away the first time—after telling him my sins, the Padre asked me, “Anything else?” I said no. And looking me in the eye he asked me, “And in holy matrimony, have you done things right with your wife?”
“No, Father,” I answered, “because doctors forbid us to have more children.”
And he responded, “And what do doctors have to do with this?”
“They said we could procreate a monster,” I answered him.
“You would have deserved it!” shouted the Saint. And he kicked me out of the confessional again.
Birth rate per 1000 persons
(2009 List by the CIA World Factbook)
21 Madagascar 38.14
25 Gaza Strip 36.93
32 Gabon 35.57
47 Haiti 29.10
49 Saudi Arabia 28.55
54 Pakistan 27.62
61 Philippines 27.62
82 India 21.76
95 Mexico 19.71
102 Turkey 18.66
105 Argentina 17.94
111 Iran 17.17
135 Ireland 14.23
138 United States 13.82
143 France 12.57
145 Australia 12.47
149 China 11.18
172 Spain 9.72
177 Switzerland 9.59
189 Austria 8.65
191 Italy 8.18
192 Japan 7.64
Current Issue
