|
|
 |
Chris
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
This was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
"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.
|
- What does this mean in regards to when
an abortion can be performed?
Thanks!
Chris
|
|
{
What does this Catholic Encyclopedia article mean as to when an abortion can be performed? (Pt1) }
|
|
John
replied:
|
Hi, Chris —
Thanks for your question.
Direct abortion of a child in the
womb can never be justified under
any circumstances.
What this is saying is if the mother
must undergo some other procedure to save her life and the procedure
causes the death of the child which
can't be prevented, then the procedure
can be justified.
For example: if a woman has cancer
and she needs radiation or chemo
therapy in order to live, then it
is permissible for her have those
treatments, even if regrettably,
the baby's life will be lost.
In the scenario above, the death
of the child was an unavoidable consequence
of an attempt to save the mother.
It is not the same as directly murdering
the child through an abortion in
order to save the mother. The child
is innocent and cannot be directly
attacked in order to save the mother.
If the child dies as result of other
treatment, the intention of the other
treatment was to save the mother,
not to kill or murder the child.
John
|
Chris
replied:
|
Hi, John —
- Thanks for the answer, but what
if aborting the baby was necessary
to save the mother's life?
Chris
|
John
replied:
|
Chris,
First of all, such an instance is
extremely rare.
Secondly, as I said before direct
abortion can never be justified under
any circumstances.
You can't directly kill an innocent
baby in order to save the life of
the mother.
John
|
Chris
replied:
|
John,
- Then not trying to save the life
of a mother is not murder?
I do not agree with this teaching.
In
this rare instance, I believe in saving the mother because, not only may she be able to produce life again, but,
- What if she already has (babies|kids)
that need to be taken care
of?
This makes no sense.
Chris
|
John
replied:
|
Chris,
As Catholics we can't pick and choose
which teaching to accept. One cannot
be 99% Catholic just like one can't be 99%
pregnant. This is an infallible teaching
in the area of faith and morals.
It is one thing to struggle with
it or even to understand it, but
if you wish to remain in full communion
with the Church and not fall into
formal heresy, you must submit to
it.
Trying to save the mother's life
is fine, up to the point when you
directly murder the life of an innocent
person to do it.
These cases rarely occur. Women can be treated for just
about everything without having to
directly and intentionally murder
the child in her womb. The feminists,
and so called clinics that make
billions of dollars killing babies,
would have you believe otherwise.
Nevertheless, we don't decide for
ourselves what is right and wrong.
This is another recent heresy which
has infested the minds of Catholics.
Catholics must follow their conscience
and must allow the Magisterium, the
Teaching Authority of the Church,
to inform their conscience. The conscience is not the
place where we decide what is right
and wrong for ourselves. The conscience
is the place where we decide whether
or not to obey God.
God has spoken through His Sacred
Word which comes to us through Scripture
and Sacred Tradition. That Word is
interpreted by the Teaching Authority
Christ gave the Church.
I encourage you to study further
and pray that God open your eyes
to His Will. You cannot continue
to protest Catholic doctrine, without
becoming a Protestant. A Protestant,
after all, is someone who does just
that, Protests. If you continue in
heresy, you should abstain from receiving the
Eucharist until God gives the grace
of repentance and you indeed repent
of this heresy.
John
|
Chris
replied:
|
John,
Sorry for the confusion; this is what I as referring to:
A Few Particular Cases
What if the life of the mother or
of the child to be born is in danger?
"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.
[Paths of Love.com]
And if she is the mother of a large
family?
"But, it is objected, the
life of the mother, especially
the mother of a large family,
is of incomparably greater value
than that of a child not yet born.
The application of the theory
of the equivalation of values
to the case which occupies us
has already been accepted in juridical
discussions. The reply to this
harrowing objection is not difficult.
The inviolability of the life
of an innocent human being does
not depend on its greater or lesser
value. It is already more than
ten years since the Church formally condemned the destruction of life
considered to be 'without value'; and whosoever knows the sad events
that preceded and provoked that
condemnation, whosoever is able
to weigh the direct consequences
that would result, from measuring
the inviolability of innocent
life according to its value, can well appreciate the motives that
determined that condemnation.
Besides, who can judge with certainty
which of the two lives is in fact
the more precious? Who can know
what path that child will follow
and to what heights of achievement
and perfection he may reach? Two
greatnesses are being compared
here, one of them being an unknown
quantity."
Pius XII, Allocution to Large
Families, Nov. 26, 1951.
[Paths of Love.com]
|
Blessings,
Chris
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, Chris —
I've been reading the dialogue between
you and John but want to focus my
answer on your last reply.
I see no place, in both those quotes,
where Pius XII implies the mother
should be saved at the expense of
the baby in her womb. The first paragraph
emphasizes both lives should be saved.
Pius states:
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.
The second paragraph talks about
a situation where the mother wills
to bring the baby to birth.
Pius states:
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
The inviolability of the life of
an innocent human being does not
depend on its greater or lesser value.
It is already more than ten years
since the Church formally condemned
the destruction of life considered
to be 'without value';
Maybe if you show me, or highlight where Pius XII at least implies it
is OK to kill the baby to save the
life of the mother,
I can understand.
I found this article interesting
as well. It references the portions
of Pius XII you have quoted:
Mike
|
John
replied:
|
Chris,
It means exactly what I've said.
You can never directly kill one innocent
life to save another.
Therefore a direct abortion is never
permissible. If the child dies because
of the treatment the mother is receiving to save her life it is not a direct
abortion; it is an indirect consequence
which you did your best to avoid,
but it's not like you are intentionally
killing the child in order to treat
the mother. There is a difference
between the two.
In the case where you are simply
treating the mother, the child's
death is collateral and unintentional.
If you kill the child directly, in
order to make the treatment easier,
or for whatever reason, then you've
committed murder.
According to what you have quoted,
the same holds true in the opposite
scenario. You never directly kill
the mother in order to save the baby.
John
|
Chris
replied:
|
John,
Thank you for your help but what
if it comes down to one choice:
- the mother, or
- the baby
- How is that viewed
by the Church and why?
Chris
|
John
replied:
|
Chris —
Let's say the mother is diagnosed
with uterine cancer. The only way
for her to live is to perform a hysterectomy.
Obviously, this procedure would kill
the baby. In that instance, the abortion
was not direct or intended but if
the abortion were to be performed
before the hysterectomy or to facilitate
it, then it would be murder.
John
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Chris,
The situation can sometimes exist
that if you don't kill the child,
the mother may die or both may die.
In that case, you do the best you
can for both and hope for the best,
but you never directly take the life
of one to save the life of the other.
In order to speak more clearly about
this, one would have to have a concrete
case to address.
The case of Gianna Molla is relevant,
though different. She had cancer
of the uterus, and she could have
had her uterus removed, with the
child in it, thus resulting in the
death of the child. Morally, that
is permissible. You are removing
the diseased uterus, not directly
killing the child. Mrs. Molla, however,
chose not even to do that permissible
action, but instead carried the child
until it could be safely delivered,
and then she died. We are allowed
to be heroic.
There is the pertinent case of a
child whose head is too large for
birth and who for some reason cannot
be taken by C-section. Some moralists
say it is legitimate to crush the
skull of the living child, thus killing
it, to allow it to pass through the
birth canal. They say they are not
killing the child, only altering
the skull dimensions.
This is a (specious|plausible but wrong) argument. Of course, this act is
a direct attack on the child and
is evil.
With good obstetric management, this
type of situation ought not happen.
I hope these two scenarios clarify
the moral principles that John has
explained.
Mary Ann
(Continued
here.)
|
|
|
|
