Replies

http://www.cathmed.org/index.shtml
Main website

http://www.priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm
Part of an interview with their former president and Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life is below.

I am not sure if things have advanced beyond the position paper I listed above in 2003, but their ethical journal, Linacre Quarterly, is available to peruse online on their website.

I would address this question to them if you are interested. In the meantime, I am not sure if the Bishop of Denver has consulted them or not.

G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. As a matter of fact for a while.. several years.. I was very interested in that question in my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere. And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern medicine. That is not necessary to be done.

Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.

And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.

CHARTER FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance

Abortion

139. The inviolability of the human person from conception prohibits as the suppression of prenatal life. This is "a direct violation of the fundamental right to life of the human being"[266] and is "an abominable crime."[267]

There is need to make explicit reference to suppression of life by abortion and its moral gravity because of the ease of recourse to this homicidal practice today and the ethical indifference towards it induced by a hedonistic and utilitarian culture—offspring of theoretical and practical materialism—which has spawned a truly abortionist mentality.

The elimination of the unwanted pregnancy has become a wide-spread phenomenon, financed by taxpayer's money and facilitated by permissive and guaranteed legislation.[268] All of this is the fatal cause for many people to avoid taking responsibility for the expected child and so to banalize a serious sin.[269]

"Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding.... At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a , giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the state, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health care systems."[270]

140. The Church, like every person who holds life dear, cannot become accustomed to this mentality, and she raises her voice in defense of life, especially that of the defenseless and unknown, which embryonic and fetal life is.

She calls health care workers to , which does not tolerate any action which suppresses life, despite "the Ask of incomprehension, misunderstanding, and serious discrimination" which this consistency might cause.[271] Fidelity to de-legitimizes every intervention, surgical or pharmaceutical, intended to interrupt the pregnancy at any stage.

141. It is also true that in certain cases, by refusing an abortion, other important goods—which it is only normal that one would want to safeguard—are put in jeopardy. These could be: danger to the mother's health, the burden of another child, a serious malformation of the fetus, a pregnancy caused by rape.

These problems cannot be ignored or minimized, nor the reasons supporting them. But it must also be affirmed that none of them can objectively give the right to dispose of another's life, even in the initial phase. "Life, in fact, is too fundamental a good for it to be compared with certain disadvantages, even if they be very great."[272]

142. Ethical delegitimization applies to all forms of direct abortion, since it is an intrinsically blameworthy act. The use of substances or means which impede the implantation of the fertilized embryo or which cause its premature detachment is also an act of abortion. A doctor who would knowingly prescribe or apply such substances or means would cooperate in the abortion.

If the abortion follows as a foreseen but nor intended or willed but merely tolerated consequence of a therapeutic act essential for the mother's health, this is morally legitimate. The abortion in this case is the indirect result of an act which is not in itself abortive.[273]

143. If the health care worker is faced with legislation favorable to abortion he "must refuse politely but firmly."[274] "One can never obey a law that is intrinsically immoral, and this is so in the case of a law which admits, in principle, the lawfulness of abortion."[275]

As a result, doctors and nurses are obliged to be . The great, fundamental value of life makes this obligation a grave moral duty for medical personnel who are encouraged by the law to carry out abortions or to cooperate proximately in direct abortion.

Awareness of the inviolable value of life and of God's law protecting it, is antecedent to all positive human law. When the latter is contrary to God's law, conscience affirms its primary right and the primacy of God's law: "One must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

"It is not always easy to follow one's conscience in obedience to God's law. It may entail sacrifice and disadvantages, and one can in no way discount this cost; sometimes heroism is called for if one is to be faithful to these demands. Nevertheless, it must be clearly stated that the road of genuine progress for the human person passes through this constant fidelity to a conscience upholding rectitude and truth."[276]

144. As well as being a mark of professional loyalty, conscientious objection on the part of the health care worker, for the right reasons, is highly meaningful as a against innocent and defenseless life.

145. The gravity of the sin of abortion and the ease with which it is carried out, supported by law and the modern mentality, prompts the Church to threaten the penalty of for the Christian who procures it: "One who procures an effective abortion incurs excommunication."[277]

The excommunication has an essentially preventative and pedagogical significance. It is a forceful call from the Church, meant to arouse insensitive consciences, to dissuade people from an act which is absolutely incompatible with Gospel demands, and to awaken unreserved fidelity to life. One cannot be in ecclesial communion and at the same time disregard the Gospel of life through the practice of abortion.

The protection and acceptance of the expected child, its preference to all other values, is a decisive and credible witness which the Christian must give no matter what.

266. Holy See, , art. 4 la.

267. Ecum. Coun. Vatican II, Past. Constit., , n. 51. Cf. Paul VI, , in AAS 64 (1972) pp. 776-779.

268. Cf. John Paul II, " Jan. 25, 1986, in IX/1, 190-192, n. 3.

269. Cf. John Paul II, Nov. 3, 1979, in II/2, pp. 1034-10335.

270. John Paul II, Encyclical , March 25, 1995, n. 4.

271. Cf. John Paul II, , Dec. 28, 1978, in I p. 438 Cong. Doct. Faith , June 18,1971, in AAS 66 (1974) 744, n. 24. "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. 'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish' ( 2, 2)" [CCC 2271].

272. Cf. Cong. Doct. Faith, , June 18, 1974, in AAS 66 (1974) 739.

273. CF Pius XII " Nov. 27, 1951, in AAS 43 (1951) p. 859.

274. Cf. John Paul II, , Jan. 26, 1980, in III/1, p. 194, n. 3.

275. Cong. Doct. Faith, , June 18, 1974. in AAS 66 (1974) 744. n. 22.

276. Ibid, n. 24.

277. , can. 1398. means that the excommunication need not be pronounced by authority in every single case. It is incurred by anyone who procures an abortion by the simple fact of having voluntarily procured it while aware of the excommunication.