Dailey, Thomas G.

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 34 | Number 3 Article 8August 1967The Catholic Position on AbortionThomas G. DaileyFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationDailey, Thomas G. (1967) "The Catholic Position on Abortion," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 34 : No. 3 , Article 8.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol34/iss3/8. The Catholic · Position On Abortion REVEREND THOMAS G. DAILEY In March, those who hoped for liberalizing New York state's 84-year old abortion law saw their bill die in committee. Everyone knows, however, that they · have not given up; they will try again next year. In the meantime, it seems that an astonishing irony lies at the root of the abortion controversy: a society so attuned to the preciousness of human life that it protects the barbarity of capital punishment, condemns na-palm bombing of civilians and de-cries inhuman jails, ought to be enlightened enough to see the in-admissibility of destroying life in th~ womb. The Catholic Church believes that physicians are committed to the preservation of life in the same way that governments are obligated to protect innocent life. The physician by the Hippocratic oath swears never to induce an abortion and the gov-ernment by its very nature is obliged to safeguard the life of the innocent. It is partly because we assume the innocence of civilians in war that we debate its morality. It is partly be-cause we fear executing the innocent that we question capital punishment. We have such a horror of possible error in deciding a person's guilt that a man standing with a s~oking re-volver over a fresh corpse is con-sidered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And yet pro-ponents of abortion would have the state legally presume a foetus guilty (as of capital crime) and subject the unborn to the sentence of death to be carried out by competent physicians. 218 It must be pointed out immec, · Ltely that Church teaching prone ces judgment on no man's person2 ::on-science. In this. study of Cr ·1olic teaching, no statement is me tt to accuse present day abortion ady· -:ates of malice. But Church teachin'· aoks rather to the defense of the df. · nse-less, in this case the unborn, to ·1ield that life from any attacker even though he be in good faith. The Catholic Church hoi that life within the womb is inviol · ·le at every stage of its developmer: She sums up a long and consistent radi-tion in these words of the P · toral Constitution on the Church ~. the Modern World: "God, the I rd of life, has conferred on men t1 sur-passing ministry of safeguardL ~ life, · a ministry which must be fulB ' ed in a manner that is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment )f its conception life must be guard - with the greatest care while aborth , and infanticide are unspeakable cr mes." (#51) The Church carries ud the mission of Christ iri proclaim! ' g the dignity and inviolability of 1 uman life and she must oppose r ; evil "whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, ge:r cide, abortion, euthanasia or wilftl self-destruction." (CMW, #27) The Church's opposition to abor-tion goes back to the first century. The Didache (5.2) (A.D. 65-80) condemned abortion. The early second century Letter of Barnabas (19.5) declared: "You shall not kill the foetus by an abortion.'; Later in the same century Athenagoras (P.G. LINACRE QuARTERLY 6:969) and Clement of Alexandria (GCS 12:215) vigorously condemned all abortions. Tertullian in his · Apology (9.8) and Cyprian in his Epis ties ( 52:2) likewise declare all abortions murder. Despite universal agreement with-in th~ Church that abortion was murder, the exact moment at which a foetus was infused with a ra tiona} soul was disputed. The overwhelm-ing majority of theologians followed the 40-80 day development theory of Aristotle, i.e. that the male embryo was not infused with a human soul until the fortieth day of development; the female was not animated 'til the eightieth. The Aristotelian conjec-tur~ was to prevail unchallenged unttl modern times. Despite this presumed delay in ensoulment, how-ever, ~er~ullian taught in his Apology <9·8) · It makes no difference whether _one snatches a soul already ~m or u~terferes with its coming to birth. It IS a human being and one who is to be a man . . . " And Basil wrote: "A woman who deliberately destroys a foetus is answerable for th~ t_aking of life. And any hair-sphttmg distinction as to its being !o~ed (i.e., animated) or unformed ~Inadmissible with us." (Letters 188, .G. 32:672) · Thus, the Fathers taught that all life must be inviolate and using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged !h~t not only the destruction of ex-~ting life, but the interruption of the . e-development process was homi-Cide. They were led to attach sanctity not only to life but to the whole embryonic development. The 40-80 day Aristotelian ensoul-Dlent theory continued to assert great AUGUST, 1967 influence on theological pronounce-ments. Innocent III in a particular decision, (Sicut et Litterarum, 1211), said that aborting a non-animated foetus was not homicide. The Decre-tals of Gregory IX (1241) affirmed the same position. However, Sixtus V in the Bull Effraenatum (1588) condemned all abortions at any stage of fetal development as homicide. But Gregory XIV in ( 1591 ) revoked the penalties of Effraenatum and re-asserted the distinction between the anima ted and non -anima ted foetus·. Pius IX, however, in a Motu Proprio in 1869 restored the rigor of Ef-fraenatum: all abortions were condemned as murder. Critics are quick to cite the above variations as weakness in the Church's conviction about abortion. Two things must be asserted how-ever: first, that the Church could not be expected to teach her doctrines with a better biology than was offered her in those times. Consequently her teaching could only reflect what Aristotle and Galen taught regarding animation; second, that Gregory XIV revoked only the penalties of Effrae-natum, not the teachings. The condemnation of all abortion as murder by Pius IX is again af-firmed by Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930) and subsequently in numer-ous documents of Pius XII. His allo-cution on 26 Nov. 1951 is reminiscent of Tertullian and Basil in prescind-ing from the moment of ensoulment: "Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of development of life . . . all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life." 219 We have no divine revelation on the time of animation, . nor any of-ficial pronouncement of the Church. But scientists and theologians are in the vast majority convinced that it happens at the very instant the ovum is fertilized. In any case it must be pointed out with Basil and Pius XII that embrvonic development is one of proxim;te continuity. No humart foetus can ever be confused with that of any other species. The human foetus cannot develop into a cow, rabbit, or pig; it can only become a man. Nor do those, who might still doubt whether the foetus in its early de-velopment is human, have the righ_t to move against the life of that foetus. In response to proposed changes in Maryland's abortion laws, Cardinal Shehan recently de-clared that it was the hallmark of our civilization that when there was a doubt as to the presence of human life, the benefit of doubt should be given to its presence rather than its absence. One might add this illus-tration: Doctors do not send patients to autopsy rooms if there is the slight-est doubt they might still be alive. Can the Church in the light oi pluralism withdraw from the lists? Must we concede to the defenders of abortion the right to perform them according to the dictates of their own conscience? If we now make room for the conscience of others on birth 220 control and divorce legislati , on what possible ground can w< 1raw the line at abortion? The problem with this 1 · " of thought is that it neglects to otice that the foetus is also a party ) the debate (though it cannot spt " ~ for itself). Neither birth contr1 nor divorce present comparable :tua-tions, for no existent life is a ·~· take. But the foetus has the person [ right to live. The Church is keenly av. ·e of the pain and disease and dea tl often resultant from illegal abortion Her heart goes out in tender comr ·ssion to these victim mothers. But _.ath-olics must not get backed · to a corner on the emotional issue~ They must not find themselves in th awk-ward situation of being h f rtless legalists who prefer a metap, ysical principle to a "merciful" res\ ution of an agonizing predicament. ather must Catholics stand staunch .y for the child as true champions 0 • per-sonal rights, protectors of h "lpless human beings whose very exh tence . is jeopardized by those who r re re-luctant to admit that the unbc:-n are human. FATHER DAILEY, a native of N w Yo.rk, spent a year in parish work in Puer:_o R1co after ordination in 1953. Returnmg to Buffalo, he served in two more . arishes. After higher studies in Rome, he e:1 rn~d a Doctorate in Sacred Theology and smce 1961 has been teaching Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Seminary, E. Aurora, N.Y. LINACRE QuARTERLY Health Care of the Religious in the · Buffalo Diocese DANIEL J. McCuE, M.D. "The Church in America today needs as riever before, a great army of Religious women who · are spirit-ually, intellectually and profession-ally superior. One of the best measures of their productivity is their physical health. The aim of the Health Program for ·Religious is to provide the means to attain physical strength to rna tch their dedication and stamina for their apostolate. Physical, mental and spiritual health are a Trinity vital for personality de-velopment. To help secure health for these Ladies of the Church is our primary interest-a labor of love." Thus was this goal so aptly stated in the Manual, Health to Match her Dedication by James T. Nix,· M.D. and Con J. Fecher, Ph.D. Many physicians treating the Religious have · become aware that frequently when first seen, serious illness has become well advanced. Many nuns have not had any type of medical care for years. When symptoms and signs of disease per-sist, they are seen for the first time. It is disheartening to find advanced disease, especially of a malignant type, knowing that there is little hope for cure or improvement. In recent years the health care of Religious, or the lack of it, has prompted physicians to advocate and develop programs for routine annual comprehensive physical examinations of the various religious orders. Dr. James Nix, who is quoted above, was one of these outstanding and dedi-AucusT~ 1967 cated physicians who stressed these needs, and pioneered this type of work. Several years ago a Pilot Program was planned and instituted by the Catholic Physicians' Guild -in Buf-falo, New York. The Outpatient Departments of the Catholic hos-pitals were utilized to examine a large group of nuns from the Buffalo area. These examinations were done on a Saturday afternoon when the Out-patient Department Clinics were not in use for the public. For a two-week period prior to the actual examinations, in order to avoid overloading the Laboratory and X-ray Departments of these hospitals~ the following screening tests were done: CBC, Routine Urine, two-hour post digestive Blood Sugar, and Chest X-ray. Pap smears were done on the day of the physical examina-tion. Each nun was provided with a Cornell-like type of Questionnaire prior to the examination. Complete past history, current symptoms, etc. , were recorded. These forms ac-companied the nun on the day of the examination. Physicians representing the various specialties participated in our pro-gram. The nuns would move from one diagnostic station to the next in an orderly fashion, and a check list was completed. Registered nurses and volunteers from the various hos-pital Guilds greatly facilitated. our · work. More than 600 nuns were examined in the above fashion. 221 

The Catholic Position on Abortion

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 34 | Number 3 Article 31August 1967The Catholic Position on AbortionThomas G. DaileyFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationDailey, Thomas G. (1967) "The Catholic Position on Abortion," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 34 : No. 3 , Article 31.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol34/iss3/31. The Catholic · Position On Abortion REVEREND THOMAS G. DAILEY In March, those who hoped for liberalizing New York state's 84-year old abortion law saw their bill die in committee. Everyone knows, however, that they · have not given up; they will try again next year. In the meantime, it seems that an astonishing irony lies at the root of the abortion controversy: a society so attuned to the preciousness of human life that it protects the barbarity of capital punishment, condemns na-palm bombing of civilians and de-cries inhuman jails, ought to be enlightened enough to see the in-admissibility of destroying life in th~ womb. The Catholic Church believes that physicians are committed to the preservation of life in the same way that governments are obligated to protect innocent life. The physician by the Hippocratic oath swears never to induce an abortion and the gov-ernment by its very nature is obliged to safeguard the life of the innocent. It is partly because we assume the innocence of civilians in war that we debate its morality. It is partly be-cause we fear executing the innocent that we question capital punishment. We have such a horror of possible error in deciding a person's guilt that a man standing with a s~oking re-volver over a fresh corpse is con-sidered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And yet pro-ponents of abortion would have the state legally presume a foetus guilty (as of capital crime) and subject the unborn to the sentence of death to be carried out by competent physicians. 218 It must be pointed out immec, · Ltely that Church teaching prone ces judgment on no man's person2 ::on-science. In this. study of Cr ·1olic teaching, no statement is me tt to accuse present day abortion ady· -:ates of malice. But Church teachin'· aoks rather to the defense of the df. · nse-less, in this case the unborn, to ·1ield that life from any attacker even though he be in good faith. The Catholic Church hoi that life within the womb is inviol · ·le at every stage of its developmer: She sums up a long and consistent radi-tion in these words of the P · toral Constitution on the Church ~. the Modern World: "God, the I rd of life, has conferred on men t1 sur-passing ministry of safeguardL ~ life, · a ministry which must be fulB ' ed in a manner that is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment )f its conception life must be guard - with the greatest care while aborth , and infanticide are unspeakable cr mes." (#51) The Church carries ud the mission of Christ iri proclaim! ' g the dignity and inviolability of 1 uman life and she must oppose r ; evil "whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, ge:r cide, abortion, euthanasia or wilftl self-destruction." (CMW, #27) The Church's opposition to abor-tion goes back to the first century. The Didache (5.2) (A.D. 65-80) condemned abortion. The early second century Letter of Barnabas (19.5) declared: "You shall not kill the foetus by an abortion.'; Later in the same century Athenagoras (P.G. LINACRE QuARTERLY 6:969) and Clement of Alexandria (GCS 12:215) vigorously condemned all abortions. Tertullian in his · Apology (9.8) and Cyprian in his Epis ties ( 52:2) likewise declare all abortions murder. Despite universal agreement with-in th~ Church that abortion was murder, the exact moment at which a foetus was infused with a ra tiona} soul was disputed. The overwhelm-ing majority of theologians followed the 40-80 day development theory of Aristotle, i.e. that the male embryo was not infused with a human soul until the fortieth day of development; the female was not animated 'til the eightieth. The Aristotelian conjec-tur~ was to prevail unchallenged unttl modern times. Despite this presumed delay in ensoulment, how-ever, ~er~ullian taught in his Apology <9·8) · It makes no difference whether _one snatches a soul already ~m or u~terferes with its coming to birth. It IS a human being and one who is to be a man . . . " And Basil wrote: "A woman who deliberately destroys a foetus is answerable for th~ t_aking of life. And any hair-sphttmg distinction as to its being !o~ed (i.e., animated) or unformed ~Inadmissible with us." (Letters 188, .G. 32:672) · Thus, the Fathers taught that all life must be inviolate and using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged !h~t not only the destruction of ex-~ting life, but the interruption of the . e-development process was homi-Cide. They were led to attach sanctity not only to life but to the whole embryonic development. The 40-80 day Aristotelian ensoul-Dlent theory continued to assert great AUGUST, 1967 influence on theological pronounce-ments. Innocent III in a particular decision, (Sicut et Litterarum, 1211), said that aborting a non-animated foetus was not homicide. The Decre-tals of Gregory IX (1241) affirmed the same position. However, Sixtus V in the Bull Effraenatum (1588) condemned all abortions at any stage of fetal development as homicide. But Gregory XIV in ( 1591 ) revoked the penalties of Effraenatum and re-asserted the distinction between the anima ted and non -anima ted foetus·. Pius IX, however, in a Motu Proprio in 1869 restored the rigor of Ef-fraenatum: all abortions were condemned as murder. Critics are quick to cite the above variations as weakness in the Church's conviction about abortion. Two things must be asserted how-ever: first, that the Church could not be expected to teach her doctrines with a better biology than was offered her in those times. Consequently her teaching could only reflect what Aristotle and Galen taught regarding animation; second, that Gregory XIV revoked only the penalties of Effrae-natum, not the teachings. The condemnation of all abortion as murder by Pius IX is again af-firmed by Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930) and subsequently in numer-ous documents of Pius XII. His allo-cution on 26 Nov. 1951 is reminiscent of Tertullian and Basil in prescind-ing from the moment of ensoulment: "Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of development of life . . . all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life." 219 We have no divine revelation on the time of animation, . nor any of-ficial pronouncement of the Church. But scientists and theologians are in the vast majority convinced that it happens at the very instant the ovum is fertilized. In any case it must be pointed out with Basil and Pius XII that embrvonic development is one of proxim;te continuity. No humart foetus can ever be confused with that of any other species. The human foetus cannot develop into a cow, rabbit, or pig; it can only become a man. Nor do those, who might still doubt whether the foetus in its early de-velopment is human, have the righ_t to move against the life of that foetus. In response to proposed changes in Maryland's abortion laws, Cardinal Shehan recently de-clared that it was the hallmark of our civilization that when there was a doubt as to the presence of human life, the benefit of doubt should be given to its presence rather than its absence. One might add this illus-tration: Doctors do not send patients to autopsy rooms if there is the slight-est doubt they might still be alive. Can the Church in the light oi pluralism withdraw from the lists? Must we concede to the defenders of abortion the right to perform them according to the dictates of their own conscience? If we now make room for the conscience of others on birth 220 control and divorce legislati , on what possible ground can w< 1raw the line at abortion? The problem with this 1 · " of thought is that it neglects to otice that the foetus is also a party ) the debate (though it cannot spt " ~ for itself). Neither birth contr1 nor divorce present comparable :tua-tions, for no existent life is a ·~· take. But the foetus has the person [ right to live. The Church is keenly av. ·e of the pain and disease and dea tl often resultant from illegal abortion Her heart goes out in tender comr ·ssion to these victim mothers. But _.ath-olics must not get backed · to a corner on the emotional issue~ They must not find themselves in th awk-ward situation of being h f rtless legalists who prefer a metap, ysical principle to a "merciful" res\ ution of an agonizing predicament. ather must Catholics stand staunch .y for the child as true champions 0 • per-sonal rights, protectors of h "lpless human beings whose very exh tence . is jeopardized by those who r re re-luctant to admit that the unbc:-n are human. FATHER DAILEY, a native of N w Yo.rk, spent a year in parish work in Puer:_o R1co after ordination in 1953. Returnmg to Buffalo, he served in two more . arishes. After higher studies in Rome, he e:1 rn~d a Doctorate in Sacred Theology and smce 1961 has been teaching Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Seminary, E. Aurora, N.Y. LINACRE QuARTERLY Health Care of the Religious in the · Buffalo Diocese DANIEL J. McCuE, M.D. "The Church in America today needs as riever before, a great army of Religious women who · are spirit-ually, intellectually and profession-ally superior. One of the best measures of their productivity is their physical health. The aim of the Health Program for ·Religious is to provide the means to attain physical strength to rna tch their dedication and stamina for their apostolate. Physical, mental and spiritual health are a Trinity vital for personality de-velopment. To help secure health for these Ladies of the Church is our primary interest-a labor of love." Thus was this goal so aptly stated in the Manual, Health to Match her Dedication by James T. Nix,· M.D. and Con J. Fecher, Ph.D. Many physicians treating the Religious have · become aware that frequently when first seen, serious illness has become well advanced. Many nuns have not had any type of medical care for years. When symptoms and signs of disease per-sist, they are seen for the first time. It is disheartening to find advanced disease, especially of a malignant type, knowing that there is little hope for cure or improvement. In recent years the health care of Religious, or the lack of it, has prompted physicians to advocate and develop programs for routine annual comprehensive physical examinations of the various religious orders. Dr. James Nix, who is quoted above, was one of these outstanding and dedi-AucusT~ 1967 cated physicians who stressed these needs, and pioneered this type of work. Several years ago a Pilot Program was planned and instituted by the Catholic Physicians' Guild -in Buf-falo, New York. The Outpatient Departments of the Catholic hos-pitals were utilized to examine a large group of nuns from the Buffalo area. These examinations were done on a Saturday afternoon when the Out-patient Department Clinics were not in use for the public. For a two-week period prior to the actual examinations, in order to avoid overloading the Laboratory and X-ray Departments of these hospitals~ the following screening tests were done: CBC, Routine Urine, two-hour post digestive Blood Sugar, and Chest X-ray. Pap smears were done on the day of the physical examina-tion. Each nun was provided with a Cornell-like type of Questionnaire prior to the examination. Complete past history, current symptoms, etc. , were recorded. These forms ac-companied the nun on the day of the examination. Physicians representing the various specialties participated in our pro-gram. The nuns would move from one diagnostic station to the next in an orderly fashion, and a check list was completed. Registered nurses and volunteers from the various hos-pital Guilds greatly facilitated. our · work. More than 600 nuns were examined in the above fashion. 221 

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2961&amp;context=lnq

The Catholic Position on Abortion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette

epublications@Marquette