Thoughts on Abortion
Posted by Dave Keller on June 7th, 2006
[ed. note: I have updated this entry in respons well after Catholic reviewers commented. I have replace a problematic reference source with a more credible one and rephrased premature conclusions.]
Abortion is often a huge issue between our two faiths, as Catholics sometimes argue that Mormonism is too liberal in granting exceptions. Furthermore, some Catholics have criticized a perceived moral flip-flopping in LDS doctrine on whether to allow exceptions or not. This blog essay will be concerned mostly with the latter, but a few points will be made towards helping us understand each faith’s current position as well as some coverage of perceived doctrinal development in Catholicism. Please see a Catholic blogger’s response covering some of the issues raised here to balance and correct some of the perceptions given here.
The Roman Catholic Church has always considered abortion to be an evil practice. Nevertheless, the current stance of Catholicism appears to indirectly allow a procedure that has an unintended consequence of killing the fetus to save the life of the mother. In the same source, I ran across advice that resembles that of the LDS church: “As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.” Of course, it is difficult for me as an outsider to Roman Catholicism to grasp complicated issues from only a few sources, so in addition to opening up M&C for a Catholics to clarify (see the Submit Material page), let me offer two Nihil obstat articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Answers site.
Catholic literature has noted a seeming shift in the Mormon position by citing various editions of Gospel Principles. For example, a 1999 issue of This Rock reports:
“There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened” (Gospel Principles [a 1988 basic manual for church members], 241.) “There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when (1) pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; (2) the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or (3) the fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth” (Gospel Principles [1992], 251.)
The author of this could have benefitted from reading more broadly as can Mormons who may not be well informed what the LDS church’s current stance is and has been for quite some time. In addition to Gospel Principles, current LDS doctrinal sources include True to the Faith and the Church Handbook of Instructions which have not been silent about exceptions. Much is found in conference addresses on abortion. I see no major change in the LDS church’s stance in the correlation era. They have always discussed abortions in two ways: Teaching about the rule without mentioning exceptions and teaching the rule with exceptions.
For example search “abortion” on the Church’s website and the first hit you get is an ‘85 Conference address by Elder Nelson that discusses the general undesirability of abortion, the health of the mother exception, and he describes a scenario where a stake president “counseled” that a problematic pregnancy was not ended and the parents being blessed for choosing that counsel. Among the next few hits one gets a ‘73 official, First Presidency signed statement that mentions all the exceptions that TTTF does and stresses necessity of counseling and divine confirmation when they arise.
It would be interesting to trace Mormon thought on the issue before Roe v. Wade. Before then abortions were mostly illegal and inaccessible. So there are not many references in say, the Journal of Discourses, that discuss abortion or as it was more commonly known then as feticide. We see George Q. Cannon and a young Joseph Fielding Smith basically equating abortion to murder. However these stronger statements appear in non-official publications. The 1973 statement approvingly cites David O. McKay’s acknowledgment that no definitive, revealed statement has put abortion in the same class of crime or sin as murder, yet cautions that this admission should not be ” be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin.”
Most of the exceptions we have now are based on increased medical competence regarding early detection in regards to the health of the mother or fetus. In the 19th century, I presume that abortion was considered too scary of a medical option to consider as being practical in cases of rape or incest. It would be interesting to pinpoint when the exceptions first reached moral conscientiousness of LDS leaders. Certainly Hugh B. Brown was cognizant of them as an Assistant to the Twelve in the 50’s. He wrote:
It is a dangerous thing to try to regulate the private lives of husbands and wives or for church leaders to go into the bedroom of a couple who are married and try to dictate what they should or should not do. Many of the problems people bring to the authorities of the church should be settled by the persons themselves. They know the basic role of right and wrong. For example, there are cases where abortion is absolutely justified, in fact necessary, such as in the case of forcible rape, the threat of permanent injury to the mother’s health or life, or the possibility of a grossly deformed birth.
This was cited in BYU Studies Vol. 28:3:120 in Richard Poll’s review of: Edwin B. Firmage, ed. An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988 p. 120-121 .
I wrote my above impressions from my own research on the LDS Church’s website as well as searching Gospelink. Since then a 1976 Dialogue article by physician-historian Lester Bush has come to my attention. It is not specifically about abortion but includes it in its description of development over time of teachings against birth control. Bush concurs that exceptions in cases threatening the health of the mother were always allowed for and indeed can be inferred from the teachings against birth control. Dr. Bush does a better job surveying when anti-abortion laws came into effect against abortion. He reviews how progress in medicine and the ambient culture affected development.
A fair question to ask is whether Catholic views on abortion have developed over time. Some presentations of current Catholic belief are slow to acknowledge discrepancies in past, but quick to proof-text nuances that support the current beliefs. In fairness, the same can be said of current LDS teaching sources, whose main purpose is to teach the current stance without the confusion attending discrepancies in past history. Such presentations have the side effect of creating an environment where the fallacy of presentism flourishes. Let me provide a few helpful descriptions from wikipedia of this fallacy, as I find that it saturates the criticisms both faiths make against each other.
Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.. . .
Historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a logical fallacy also known as the “fallacy of nunc pro tunc“.. . . This interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context, but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things which do not seem relevant receive little attention, resulting in a misleading portrayal of the past.
Another form of the presentist fallacy is when judgments of the past are made using today’s standards, but it is the first form I am most concerned about. The Catholic Answers source above provides many historically citations that condemn abortion making it seem like deeply held, current beliefs were shared uniformly across time. And I am not saying that these quotes are unimportant, indeed any responsible historical treatment should deal with them. However, by carefully selecting quotes, that particular article avoids controversy much like LDS devotional material often does.
While not a Catholic source, a multi-faith panel of theologians including Catholics provide a good treatment of the historical Christian development on abortion. I The key point is that Christians have not always agreed when the soul enters the body and theologians have historically called for less severe penances for pre-ensoulment abortions. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:
It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. Yet, as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death[.]
The LDS church has never officially taken an official stand on when the spirit enters the body as recently emphasized on its official website. Mormon speculation on the subject appears as diverse as Catholic thought was prior to Pope Pius IX. My personal opinion is that when movement is felt by the mother, it is probably indicative of a spirit’s presence. However, I suspect that the spirit can move in and out of a fetus while it acclimatizes itself to his or her new mortal body. Jesus in spirit form appeared to a Book of Mormon prophet and announced his birth the next day, so Mormons have some inconclusive reasons to believe spirit and body are not permanently attached except after birth or after ressurection. Following Dr. Bush, we encounter part of Brigham Young’s opinion on this flexibility:
. . . when some people have little children born at 6 & 7 months pregnancy & they live but a few hours then die they bless them &c. but I dont do it for I think that such a spirit has not a fair chance for I think that such a spirit will have a chance of occupying another tabernacle and developing itself . . .
Some critics (and not just Catholics) approach the LDS position on abortion with the dichotomous assumption that human life is entirely defined at the point the spirit enters the body. Then they take LDS leaders to task for not receiving revelation on what point this occurs or not treating abortion exactly as murder after a reasonable time frame has past. However, if spirits associated with miscarriages, still births, and premature births resulting in death can be reassigned tabernacles (i.e. physical bodies), then not as much is morally at stake as in a murder in which the spirit being’s potential for mortal life is completely ended. Despite a reluctance to consider murder and abortion as equivalent, Mormon authorities frequently cite D&C 59:6 on abortion, as a general rule, being a grave sin on the grounds that it is “like unto” murder.
Now let us consider why some LDS leaders have condemned abortion without hinting of exceptions, some of which have always existed and some which only advances in medicine brought about clearer official statements. Even from the beginnings of Mormonism, Joseph Smith attributed the ability to acheive desirable results among his followers with this precept, “I teach men correct principles, and they govern themselves.” Of more recent note, Elder Dallin Oaks writes in this month’s Ensign.
As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
With this in mind, LDS leaders have concentrated both on decrying the evils of abortion as a general rule, however they have also articulated exceptions in which a person is entitled to personal revelation and advised to counsel with local leaders to help inform their conscience. Most LDS exceptions to the general ban on abortions are anything but automatic and regardless of what the LDS church declares, a person is accountable before God in making a decision. Impressing upon LDS members the gravity of their choice, making LDS leaders approachable, and allowing them to receive inspiration has been pragmatically effective in keeping abortion percentages down. The Mormon abortion rate is much lower than that of adherents of stricter policies. I am cheered that Catholic sources also advise concerned parties to take a similiar course, although exceptions, if they can be called that, are more narrow than those conscientiously considered by Mormons.
Some critics have expressed incredulity that a couple might receive inspiration to go ahead with an abortion in cases of jeopardy to the mother’s life, rape, incest, or little chance of fetal survival. However, consulting the divine opens the recipient to realities that can’t be known by a general, once-and-for-all revelation. It opens up the possibility whereby the spirit inhabiting the body can actually help make the choice about whether to be born or not. Presumably, both the individual spirit and God are in position to know what might be best for that individual in terms of eternal consequences. As part of the testing that accompanies our mortal probation, the ultimate choice is left up to the potential parents. Hopefully, a choice about abortion in exceptional circumstances will be made taking everything into account, both the contemplating of general revealed principles and the seeking out of the divine will in what may be unique case.
To tentatively conclude my findings, I see that Mormons and Catholics share a great deal of similarities in how we think about abortion and how our current positions have been developed over time. Both faiths are staunchly pro-life and generally against abortion, considering it a serious sin. Both positions appear to have made theological adjustments as medical competency has arisen. For example, Catholics have grounds to allow the termination of ectopic pregnancies to save the life of the mother because the death of the embryo is an unintended consequence. Both faiths advise counseling with leaders and prayerful decision making in moral close calls. A key difference is that Catholic policy allow for fewer scenarios for licit pregnancy terminations than does Mormon policy. However, between Augustine in the 4th century to about the 17th century, western Catholicism has arguably been more lenient from a disciplinary standpoint than the current LDS stance is. Therefore, I would hope that moral indignation against the current LDS position should be kept to a minimum unless one is also prepared to be indignant against historic Christianity.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Nice coverage of the whole “when does the spirit enter the fetus” question in Mormonism. I have nothing to add there.
But this is only part of the reason for my own ambivalent take on abortion.
Yes, the idea that the spirit and flesh may not be completely attached at diferent stages in development matters to me.
But I also believe that the prohibition on killing is simply not necessarily a theoretical absolute. I don’t believe that “Thou shalt not kill” is an absolute prohibition on considering other factors. In fact, I’m not even sure “Thou shalt not kill” is really even an absolute commandment.
If it was such an absolute commandment, it would have had to include disclaimers such as
“except in the case of the Ammonites, whom thou shalt slay down to the last man, woman, child, and goat.”
And does this commandment prohibit self defense? What about all those Mosaic laws based on the eye-for-an-eye principle that came right after the Stone Tablets?
Christ’s ministry seems to indicate change from the Mosaic rules, but then we have God acting distinctly “Old Testament” in striking down two early Christians for failing to chip into the community welfare fund in The Acts.
And did Christ really prohibit killing in defense of self or others? What about capital punishment?
I don’t know. But, at the end of the day, it just doesn’t look like an absolute commandment anymore. And I just can’t say with any assurance that God isn’t willing to take other factors into account in the whole abortion question. I just don’t see any iron-clad reason to think that the presence of spirit in the flesh is the first and last word in this whole debate for a believer.
At the end of the day, I shrug my shoulders, admit I don’t know why we oppose abortion, and adopt the latest position of the LDS leadership. I have no opinion, so I’m willing to adopt theirs as a matter of faith.
June 8th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Excellent comments Seth, I especially like your tie in about the seeming absolute rule of no killing and yet some very clear cut exceptions. Yes, I imagine that Christ advocated self defense as he had his followers pack swords to Gethsemene.
I think I am like you in that I am willing to exercise faith in Mormon leaders even if I don’t understand all the moral calculus that goes into the currrent stance. The way I see it, the general rule is over-determined without exceptions and under-determined with them. I think in Mormonism, we have our sights set on ideals and perfections which wear us out and so we are also blessed with a minimum standard. I actually like where the boundaries are set as it lets us be agents for ourselves. If I was in a tweener situation of grave consequence, I would entirely expect, nay feel entitled to, an answer to prayer. I think it is one of the real test in life, to see if we can make the right decision, even if we don’t have all the information we need. Dr. Bushman quoted Abraham Lincoln to that effect about decisions that Lincoln made during the Civil War. See http://www.richardkmiller.com/mormonism/2006/02/ for a synopsis.
I wish I would have covered more of the actual reasons the LDS church has been against abortion. I assume that Mormons take the directive to be fruitful and multiply more to heart than do Catholics, who consider celibacy a holier state. I think increased tolerance, then is offset by the increased incentive to stick difficult situations out. Also one reason why Mormons don’t equate abortion with murder is that murder is much more serious in Mormonism, being virtually unforgivable as far as the Church is concerned. But God can presumably overule the Church and the Church needs to have tough policies to act as a deterent.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Dave,
I’m not an expert in the history of Catholic teaching on abortion (or on anything, really). Additionally, I can’t find online some of the source documents the RT article cites. I might have to take a trip down the road to UNL’s library to find all of Augustine’s sermons.
However, the Apostolic Constitutions can be found online. The quote in the article doesn’t lack context (the source is here, III), but whether read on its own or within the rest of the document, I find no reason at all to conclude that the teaching was that abortion was permitted if early enough. The quote:
First, it doesn’t say “thou shalt not slay the child [...] if it is shaped.” Second, being shaped by God (a term Mormons should appreciate) is not equivalent to “being shaped like a person.”
I can also add a couple of figures not mentioned at all:
St. Hippolytus of Rome, in his “Philosophoumena” or “Refutation of All Heresies,” (post 222 AD) said this:
St. Basil the Great (of Caesarea), 374 AD, wrote in his Letter to Amphilochius (the first canonical letter):
I’m running short on time, but putting that aside, and moving to the current teaching: as I recently pointed out in the Catholic Answers forum, one must not view the Catholic teaching of moral law as merely a set of rules, given arbitrarily by God. Moral law is rooted in the personal God and the dignity of man who is made in His image, and whose body translates into the visible world the invisible spiritual reality, both of himself and of God who made him. I’m surprised you didn’t consult the Catechism’s section on the Fifth Commandment, which includes the Church’s teaching on abortion. You could say John Paul II is the “father” of the Catechism, and his influence is clear as this section speaks of murderous sins as crimes against the dignity of each human person.
Is it a crime against the dignity of an unborn child if the mother’s life is chosen over its own, as though her life has more worth in the eyes of God? Absolutely. Such is the case for abortions with the reasoning that the life of the mother is threatened. The same applies in the case of rape or incest. These are awful situations, where the woman who bears the burden of another’s sin must draw enormous strength from the cross of Christ who did the same.
In the tragic case of an ectopic pregnancy or cancer, would it be respectful to the dignity of mother and child to allow them to die? No, nothing can be done for the child, but something can be done for the mother.
As for the RT’s other “exceptions,” I haven’t thought about those, although they come from situations rooted in sin, as the Church condemns IVF for reasons hopefully made clear in the Catechism and this comment.
I don’t know how much we can debate the root of the issue, since the Church doesn’t believe in a premortal existence, or that spirits can be transferred to another body, etc. I think for either of us to come to a consensus on that, one would have to change his mind about the authority God has placed on the earth to teach all nations.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
[...] Dave has posted a post about abortion at Mormons and Catholics. I have commented. We invite your comments. [...]
June 8th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Brad,
You are quite right to point out me not citing the CCC. I read the passage and was planning on referring to it, but I got sidetracked. It does appear that RT is sloppy in its citations.I will try to hunt down some links as well as so we can see Augustine, Acquinas, etc. I will concede that the Apostolic Constitution is too vague to use and that eastern Catholicism such as Basil and Crysostom seem steady against abortion after conception. The real question is how pervasive late ensoulment or animation was in western Christianity between Augustine and Pope Pius IX.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Here is what apears to be a credible, but still secondary source:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mis/mis_02christiantradition1.html#b
The article is good at diffusing RT’s selective presentation. I may fix my entry to point there instead after discussion dies down. I don’t want to confuse later search engine traffic.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:33 am
In the tragic case of an ectopic pregnancy or cancer, would it be respectful to the dignity of mother and child to allow them to die? No, nothing can be done for the child, but something can be done for the mother.
I just wanted to clarify Brad’s point here. In these cases, Catholicism follows the ethical principle known as double-effect.
Basically, what it means is that you can perform an action which has a good end and an equal or lesser bad end, if the good end is what you directly intend and the bad end is unavoidable, even if foreseen. For example, in war, dropping a bomb which causes collateral damage. The collateral damage is not intended, and indeed would be avoided if at all possible.
Similarly, in the case of ectopic pregnancy or cancer, the directly intended act is removal or treatment of the diseased or damaged organ, not the death of the child, which is an undesired consequence.
Just wanted to make it clear that these are not Catholic “exceptions” to the ban on abortion; they are seen as completely different kind of act.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
The Bloggernacle prevalent LDS attitudes of fideistic despair, quietism, or skepticism are not the type of thing that persuades anyone to think that we have a rational basis for our beliefs. Morality ultimately has to be based on *reasons*, or it is not morality at all, but preference.
June 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
And that is why I have a profound respect for the depth of Catholic theology on a wide variety of moral and ethical questions from war to education.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Bear,
Thanks for your clarifications about whether ectopic termination can be seen as an “exception”. This was something I stated uncertainty about in the blog entry. I don’t want to use terminolgy when I am describing Catholic belief that Catholics wouldn’t agree with.
However on my analysis, double effect seems a very similar rationale to why Mormonism allows (or better stated, leaves it up to prayerful decision and hopes due dilligence is followed in considering medical options and ecclesiastical advice) grave jeopardy to the health of the mother exceptions (which is considered an “exception” in Mormonism.)
June 9th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Dave,
I could see why you would think so, but its not really the case.
Double effect requires fulfillment of four conditions:
1. The action itself must be either morally good or at least neutral
2. The good effect must be the result of the action itself, not a result of the bad effect.
3. The good effect must be intended, the bad effect merely tolerated.
4. The good effect must be grave enough to warrant toleration of the bad effect.
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, for example:
1 - The action, removal of a damaged organ (the fallopian tube) is a morally good action.
2 - The good effect, saving the mother’s life, results from removing the damaged organ, not from the baby’s death.
3 - The intention is to remove a damaged organ, not kill a baby.
4 - Saving the mother’s life.
However, intentionally and directly procuring an abortion, even for a “good reason” does not fulfill requirements 1, 2, or 3.
1 - because it is the direct killing of an innocent human life.
2 - because the good effect, the mother’s health, is the result of the bad effect, the killing.
3 - the killing is what is intended, as it is the direct act which is taking place.
Thus, in Catholic theology, you may never acquire an abortion for any reason, even for the mother’s health. It is a difficult situation, to be sure. But one cannot do evil that good may result, in our thought.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Mark,
Would you mind describing what fideistic despair and quietism are? I looked up quietism on wikipedia and wonder if I am guilty of it.
I do see a lot of skeptism in the bloggernacle, most often in the direction of wishing the church would stay out of the bedroom and objecting to the “patriarchal” consulting.
Shouldn’t morality from Mormon perspective be based on a combination of rationality and revelation? Personally I think we have insufficient information to tighten up the boundaries of what is ideal and what shouldn’t be allowed on the abortion issue. On the other hand, I can speak only for myself, that I often don’t use reason and take advantage of all the available information before acting (like writing the blog entry for instance.) I tend to trust my conscience, which seems to be the same as what you call preference, to make decisions. However, I expect spiritual forces will act as corrective influences. Mormon teachings make a big deal about the Holy Ghost guiding discernment between right and wrong. The drawback to this, is that this can lead to a personal and subjective morality. Often I don’t feel entitled to spiritual guidance on issues that don’t personally affect me.
I am not opposed to using reason to reverse engineer spiritual guidance, but sometimes, as Elder Oaks has stated in regards to “spectacularly wrong” justifications for the priesthood ban that leads to “unneccesary risk taking”. From yet another angle, one wonders when to use reason to evaluate whether there was spiritual guidance received or needs to be received on a particular issue. In other words, if 19th century Mormon leaders and members had been able to divorce themselves of their cultural assumptions, reasoning processes might have lead the way in them being more dilligent in making themselves available for an earlier revelation. Instead, the progress of missionary work in other countries provided that impulse beginning in the 1950’s.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Bear,
You might have to help me on your double effect analysis. First I agree with your conditions necessary for double effect. After that it is all about identifying the action, the good effect, and the bad effect.
How is it determined the action of removing a damaged organ is, a priori, a neutral or good as you put it action. By a priori, I mean prior to analyzing the intentions of the actor and the effects of the action as the double effect analysis sequence calls for.
And if you can already declare an action already morally good, neutral, or evil; why bother analyzing any further?
What would be wrong with this analysis:
1 - The action, a surgical procedure (for example, a C-section) is an a priori neutral moral action.
2 - The good effect, saving the mother’s life or addressing grave health issues, results from the surgical procedure, not from the baby’s death.
3 - The intention is to save the mother’s life, not kill a baby.
4 - Saving the mother’s life.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I wrote this up on the CA board and haven’t got a response there yet. So perhaps a kind individual can field things here. I appreciate Brad’s prior comments about moral law so far. I have difficulty assessing the canon law culture. I observe that Catholics seem to read Mormon policy with a degrees of theoretical legalism that the LDS church probably does not wish it to read as. Rules are thought as more in terms of guidelines than they are absolutes. The main thing in Mormonism seems to be to be led by the Spirit, an idea that appears similiar to Eastern Orthodoxy’s oikonomia.
I see very clear moral leadership in Catholic doctrinal/policy sources like the CCC 2270 and in Canon Law 1398 and 1329 (for abortion assistors).
On the same token I see a lot of ground for some one who has committed abortion in an exceptional cases to escape punishment. So my questions would be about how enforceable the abortion regulations actually are?
For example, couldn’t a Catholic conscientiously plea insanity or making a decision under stress if their life was in danger and only an immediate, emergency procedure could save them, and that person had doubts about whether the procedure would directly or indirectly kill the fetus?
Do we know of any Catholic who refused to have an abortion when it was clear their life was at stake, and they chose to die anyway?
What if the abortionist was under a certain age of accountability like whatever the confirmation age is set at?
Would a potential mother who aborted late be subject to harsher penalties than one that aborted early?
Would a potential mother who was raped be punished as much as one who hadn’t?
Would a potential mother who had grave health reasons be punished as much as who was employing abortion as a means of birth control?
At some point doesn’t punishment of an abortionist in exceptional cases become a scandal to the more liberal members of a parish?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
I’m working on a response to your previous question, Dave. But in the meantime…
Rules are thought as more in terms of guidelines
lol. So Mormonism is like piracy. (If you don’t get it, you haven’t seen “Pirates of the Caribbean”.)
Do we know of any Catholic who refused to have an abortion when it was clear their life was at stake, and they chose to die anyway?
Yes, St. Gianna Berretta Molla, a physician herself. Read about her here: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/saintgaq.htm
As regards your other questions, the truth is they don’t really come up that often. The Church does not really go out of its way to penalize its members. Most Catholics would respond to your questions here by saying, “I never even really thought about it.” Indeed, that’s my situation right now. Usually we think of things in terms of committing sin and going to confession to be forgiven. Even when you commit a mortal sin, there are no official penalties applied to you. You cannot receive communion, but that’s not like something that is decreed. It’s just something you can’t do in the state of mortal sin, and its gone once you go to confession.
Even when people commit excommunicable offenses, they rarely are excommunicated. The Church would rather have them repent than kick them out.
Technically, as I understand it, a person incurs an automatic excommunication by obtaining or assisting in an abortion. I don’t think those apply in cases of ignorance or lack of complete will, such as insanity — circumstances which would make the abortion not a sin anyway. There really are no degrees of excommunication, so the different situations would not matter in terms of the “punishment” given except inasmuch as they might lead to the mother not being considered culpable.
Also, any penalty like this is removed as as it is revoked by the bishop, and he would do that as soon as the person repented and went to confession. There’s nothing unforgivable, and no penalties (for a layperson, that I know of at least) that they will have to bear after they repent.
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence. You mean an abortionist physician who is Catholic? Or a mother who procures an abortion?
June 9th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I meant to say “removed as soon as it is revoked by the Bishop.”
June 9th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Dave,
Let me see if I can help with double-effect. It is a much debated issue, though, so be forewarned.
Removing a damaged organ is a priori neutral because if we did it even if there was no baby in there, say if it was damaged some other way, there would be no problem with it. On the other hand, something like intentionally killing an innocent person is always wrong, whether you do it for an evil reason (you’re just a murderer) or for what you think is a good reason (for example, you want to reduce pollution by reducing the human population.)
Reducing pollution is a good end, but you are doing something intrinsically evil to achieve it (murder). You can never do things that are intrinsically evil to achieve good ends.
Now take something else, like simply shooting a gun. It is a morally neutral action. You could be hunting or target shooting or whatever. But if you’re shooting it at an innocent neighbor to kill him, then it becomes evil. Shooting a gun is a morally neutral act. Murdering with a gun is evil.
So, as relates to abortion, direct abortion can never be procured because it is an intrinsically immoral act, the killing of a child, and double effect can’t get around that.
Now, to look at your analysis.
First of all, you’ve made it interesting by choosing c-section instead of D&C or medicinally induced abortion. I don’t think there is any dispute about D&C or an induced abortion being clearly wrong even in the context of double-effect, as it is simply going in and killing the child. No matter what the effect in this situation, it comes directly from the death of the child. So one thing is certain – a D&C or a medical abortion cannot never be licit, even in cases where the health of the mother is at stake. In those cases you deliberately cause the death of the child, which results in the end of pregnancy, which results in removal of the threat to the mother’s health. We can’t accept that.
Now, the following is my own analysis. C-section seems to be more complicated. A c-section could be argued to be simply removing the child from the uterus, and then it dies, which is unintended. The good effect, the mother’s health, results from the removal of the child, not the death of the child. Should work under double-effect, right?
The logic seems right, but I don’t think that the decision is right in the end. I think that a more penetrating analysis, would reveal that it is the c-section itself that is intrinsically wrong in this case. Why? Because it is wrong to remove a child from his mother’s womb before he can be reasonably expected to survive.
Consider: let’s say a non-pregnant woman has a damaged uterus from cancer and it has to be removed. There is nothing wrong with that, and if she is pregnant, it is the exact same procedure, and the death of the child is incidental and unintended.
But a non-pregnant woman cannot have a comparable procedure. So my interpretation in this case would be that you have to consider the c-section as an entire procedure because it is specific to babies. So you have to consider what the effect on the baby is, which is death. Now, suppose that the mother is in no danger. Obviously, in this case it would be illicit to remove the baby before it is viable. To do so causes the baby’s death. So I think the argument could be made that removing a living child from the mother’s womb before it is likely to be viable is intrinsically illicit. Thus it would still be illicit in the case when the mother’s health is in danger.
That’s my best attempt at it. I will try to see if I can find something more authoritative about this particular situation.
The clear point, however, is that even double-effect can never justify a direct abortion, such as medically-induced or D&C, even in the case of the mother’s health being jeopardized.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Along the lines of what Bear said, the Church doesn’t “punish” because abortion (along with most sins) is not a sin against the Church. It’s a sin against God and against the unborn. It’s the Church’s job to prevent the sin of abortion, bring Christ’s redemption to one who repents, or protect one who is unrepentant from eating and drinking damnation upon himself or herself.
As I said in the CA forum, excommunication is NOT a punishment. It’s protection. Abortion is grave matter, and anyone who deliberately commits a grave sin, knowing that it was wrong, is in a state of mortal sin. In this state, receiving Communion would make it even worse. That’s the reason for latae sententiae excommunication for those who participate in an abortion.
Side note: some sins are against the Church, namely things like heresy, schism, etc. In these cases, the Church may take action against the sinner, but it’s still more in order to protect the rest of the faithful than to punish the sinner, and she hopes, works, and prays for reconciliation.
So, as Bear said, it’s really a matter of repentance, reconciliation, and an amended life of penance (which is the case for ALL the faithful, not just those guilty of grave sin). The Church doesn’t call a tribunal for everyone who’s committed an abortion. The Church is only directly involved in the “reconciliation” step, and the aid in the “amended life” step through the Sacraments, works of charity, and so on.
Another side note: of course, parishes usually sponsor or endorse counseling for women who have had an abortion, but this is to help the women deal with the pain and suffering it invariably causes; it’s not any kind of punishment.
As for the specific questions, a person who truly did not have right reason when they procured the abortion would not have committed a mortal sin. It has to be deliberate. Whether or not they had possession of their reason would be a matter for them to decide, possibly with the help of a spiritual advisor, if they needed it.
As Bear said, God has blessed us with a wonderful heroine and role model, St. Gianna.
Confirmation, in the Latin rite, is given to children - in Catholic schools, it’s usually the fifth or sixth grade (in the Eastern rites, Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist are all given at once to infants). The age of reason is, in almost all cases, before then. I can’t imagine someone that young deliberately, with full understanding, assisting with an abortion (or having one).
As for the rest of the questions, the degree of culpability is not something the Church presumes to decide. That’s between the sinner and the Lord. The Church does know that, by nature, deliberate, willed abortion is in all cases a grave evil. Done with full knowledge and deliberation, it’s a mortal sin. Done without, it is still a grave sin and will still harm all involved (and indeed, all of humanity), but depending on the situation, the perpetrator’s culpability will vary.
Finally, I don’t really understand the last question either.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Now, for the historical teaching. Someone in the CA forum pointed out that the Church has always held abortion to be a terrible sin, and the ensoulment debate merely affected the gravity of it. This is my impression as well, and, as the CA poster suggested, I think ReligiousTolerance.org’s mindset has affected the way they interpret the ensoulment issue. They made it seem like the Church didn’t regard early abortion as a sin at all, but in reality, it did, but a somewhat less grave one.
The CA poster also patristic writings that I (and RT.org) missed, from the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter (apocryphal, but it does decry abortion), and from one of Athenagoras’ writings. They are all on the Catholic Answers article to which you linked in this post.
June 10th, 2006 at 2:56 am
Brad,
I had an upper end of the typical age range of 16 in mind from my prior survey of confirmation ages. For example one of my sources gives a typical range of 8th through 11th grade.
http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/confirm904.htm
I do see that the canon law does not punish below age 17. I assume that means communion would not be withheld from someone 16 or less for abortion.
I am not sure how to understand confession and repentance in the Roman Catholic Church. I understand that sins are absolved in terms of one\’s standing with the Catholic Church and yet eternal consequences remain. How does Catholicism encourage repentance beyond what is required for absolution? Is an automatically excommunicated Catholic immediately allowed to participate in communion after confession or do they have meet the terms of their penance first? Would it be fair to say that Mormons are disciplined more harshly if they are found to be outside of the spirit and/or letter of the church policy? Mormonism couches discipline in the same way you have characterized penalties in Catholicism. In other words, forbidding sacraments and participation in prayer or church \”callings\” (assignments) is something that eases the condemnation that accompanies partaking unworthily. Catholic excommunication and Mormon disfellowshipping seem to share a lot of purposes. For example, Mormon Bishops only \”forgive\” sins as far as one\’s standings in the Church is concerned while reserving final judgmenet for God.
I have some suspicion that what happens after the fact in the Catholic church resembles what happens before the fact in the Mormon church. For example, a desperate Catholic would find it easier to beg for forgiveness in her interactions with clergy than explore obtaining permission to consider an abortion before the fact. Not that Catholic clergy is unavailable before the fact, I am just couching things in terms of perceived practical likelihoods. But Mormonism empowers a counseling bishop before and after the fact to use discerning and discretion. It appears that Catholicism lets the law (at least the section on abortion, but I am guessing a knowledgable Catholic could play off or synthesize it with more lenient parts of the Law) play a form of bad cop and the clergy and Jesus play a role of good cop. In contrast, Mormon policy is dualistic and tries to integrate both roles by over and under determinism, spirit and letter -ism; before and after, even if bishops become culpable by advising a wrong decision.
My question about scandal is something I have run across in my reading of the Buckley book. The idea is that a pastoral solution can take into account how big an embarrassment it would be to (or within) the Catholic Church in considering punishment. My question was in regards to an abortionist mother who aborted under conditions that might be considered as an non-automatic exception in Mormonism, but comments about the other particpants would be interesting as well.
I have read the poster\’s patristic writings already, priot to writing the blog entry. I probably can be faulted for not synthesizing those writings very well with RT\’s selection. I will fix that when I rewrite the blog entry after discussion dies down. I don\’t want to be unfair or inaccurate to later search engine hits. My second paragraph leads with abortion always being considered evil and I merely talk about Catholicism being more lenient in the past and having undergone development comparable to Mormonism. My language about exceptions should definitely be clarified and the case made from reference in 6 instead of RT.
It would be interesting to compare the thought of those Father\’s who still held abortion was wrong before or regardless of ensoulment, with the LDS church\’s current under and over determined positions. Augustine\’s big beef was that abortion was a form of birth control and birth control was evil because conscupience is bad without offspiring. That puts his position at risk for double effect arguments where intended good effects outway unintended bad effects (bracketing direct vs indirect and a priori considerations).
Surely we are all outraged against using abortion as a form of birth control .
June 10th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Bear,
You very deftly answered my questions and even anticipated most of my follow-ups. Good job! Any interest in being a guest blogger here? In any event, I think your responses and Brad’s should be cleaned up and fused into a response blog entry, even if I need to put it together.
Thanks,
Dave
June 10th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Dave,
Yes I would be interested. Can you contact me through the e-mail I put into the box to leave this message, or do you need me to send it to you?
As a matter of fact, I’d be eager to explain the Catholic conceptions of sin and repentance that you ask about in your post to Brad, but I feel it like it would take something the length of a post (rather than just a comment) to give it justice. Your questions are good ones.
June 10th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Hallelujah. I haven’t done a good job at all of taking up the Catholic mantle. (… did I use that word correctly? anyway)
Also, I should probably have just waited and assembled a reply post. I guess that’s the point of a group blog.
Ah well, this is our first real dialogue thing, and I think it’s gone well so far.
Time doesn’t permit right now, but later I’ll try to answer any remaining questions.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:06 am
[...] Recent Comments Brad Haas on Thoughts on AbortionBear on Thoughts on AbortionDave Keller on Thoughts on AbortionDave Keller on Thoughts on AbortionBrad Haas on Thoughts on AbortionBrad Haas on Thoughts on AbortionBear on Thoughts on Abortion [...]
June 11th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Dave, I apologize if someone already made this distinction, but …
You mentioned that LDS find the sin of murder “unforgiveable.”
It’s not quite as clear-cut as that.
The scripture you are referring to speaks of “the shedding of innocent blood” as a sin that is unforgiveable.
But what is “innocent blood?”
It certainly isn’t killing in self-defense.
But is the term as broad as to include anyone “who wasn’t asking for it?”
I shoot the cashier at the 7 Eleven. Have I shed innocent blood? While the cashier didn’t threaten me, and probably didn’t “have it coming to her” in any apparent sense, was she really “innocent?”
Some have suggested that there is only one truly “innocent blood” in the scriptures, and that is the blood of Christ.
They read this scripture as being largely a symbol for the knowing “denial of the Holy Ghost.” Denying Christ after having had a full and true witness of Him via the power of the Holy Ghost.
Thus the only unforgiveable sin, is to turn from God after having had a full, wholehearted, and undeniable witness. In the words of one prophet, “he has to deny the sun shines, even as he sees it’s light.”
Under this view, only a very elite group of believers is considered capable of committing the “unforgiveable sin” in the first place.
Cain is almost universally cited as qualifying. Some also cite Judas Iscarriot, but others aren’t even sure he fully qualifies.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Why’s everyone gotta pick on 7-11 cashiers?
June 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Texaco cashier. I meant to say Texaco cashier!
Better?
June 11th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Seth,
Thanks for pointing out distinctions that make it less clear cut whether murder is unforgiveable in Mormonism. There was a lot hiding behind my “virtually” unforgiveable. As further clarification mormon teachings distinguish between unforgiveable and unpardonable, but on some occassions that distinction is rhetorically obscurred. Only “denying the Holy Ghost” as you describe makes one bound to become a Son of Perdition and dooms one to the second Hell as described in D&C 76. On the other hand murder, is unforgiveable in the sense that the perpetrator will spend some time in the 1st Hell, or spirit prison, suffering for sin as per D&C 19:16-20 and then likely end up in the lowest of three heavens.
Of course the LDS church recognizes extenuating circumstances that make killing less clear cut. Murder is the “deliberate and unjustified taking of human life.” (EOM p. 970). First Presidency clearance is needed to baptize a murderer and at least one leader has come out against baptising murderers by proxy. As tough as church teaching is on murder, no revelation has stated that abortion is unforgivable. One wonders on how well the justifications for the that stance against murder seem to apply to abortion as well.
As the EoM puts it:
And
If I wasn’t so lazy right now I would explain the case from doctrinal sources instead of a EOM’s survey of Mormon thought.