Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esoglou (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 5 December 2011 (fuller). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Roman Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." It admits certain acts which indirectly result in the death of the fetus, as when the direct purpose is removal of a cancerous womb. Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law imposes automatic excommunication on Latin Rite Catholics who procure a completed abortion, if they fulfil the conditions for being subject to such a sanction. Eastern Catholics are not subject to automatic excommunication, but they are to be excommunicated by decree if found guilty of the same action, and they may be absolved of the sin only by the eparchial bishop. In addition to saying that abortion is immoral, the Catholic Church also makes statements and takes actions in opposition to its classification as legal.

Many, or in some countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position promulgated by the Church; the views of these people range from allowing exceptions in a generally pro-life position, to complete acceptance of abortion.

The Church's position

History

The Catholic Church claims that it has condemned procured abortion as immoral ever since the first century. Early Christianity's rejection of abortion is witnessed to by its earliest widely used doctrinal documents outside the New Testament, the Didache and the Letter of Barnabas and by the 2nd-century writers Tertullian and Athenagoras of Athens.

Belief in delayed animation

It was commonly held, even by Christians, that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. This view was strongly expressed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception." In that view, early abortion was not homicide, the killing of a human being. A few decades after the death of Anselm, this became part of Catholic canon law in the Decretum Gratiani, which stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body." While not classified as homicide, early abortion was considered gravely wrong: Thomas Aquinas, who accepted Aristotle's theory that a human soul was infused only after 40 days for a male fetus, 60 days for a female, saw abortion of an unsouled fetus as a sin against marriage. He wrote: "This sin, although grave and to be reckoned among misdeeds and against nature … is something less than homicide... nor is such to be judged irregular unless one procures the abortion of an already formed fetus."

Juridical consequences

Most early penitentials imposed equal penances for abortion whether early-term or late-term, but others distinguished between the two. Later penitentials normally distinguished, imposing heavier penances for late-term abortions.

Although the Decretum Gratiani, which remained the basis of Catholic canon law until replaced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, distinguished between early-term and late-term abortions, that canonical distinction was abolished for a brief period of three years by the bull of Pope Sixtus V Effraenatam of 28 October 1588. This decreed various penalties against perpetrators of all forms of abortion without distinction. Without calling abortion murder, it decreed that those who procured the abortion of a fetus, whether animated or unanimated, formed or unformed (tam animati, quam etiam inanimati, formati, vel informis) should suffer the same punishments as "true murderers and assassins who have actually and really committed murder" (veros homicidas, qui homicidium voluntarium actu, & re ipsa patraverint). As well as decreeing those punishments for subjects of the Papal States, whose civil ruler he was, Pope Sixtus also inflicted on perpetrators the spiritual punishment of automatic excommunication (section 7). Sixtus's successor, Pope Gregory XIV, recognizing that the law was not producing the hoped-for effects, withdrew it a mere three years later, limiting the punishments to abortion of a "formed" fetus.

With his 1869 bull Apostolicae Sedis moderationi, Pope Pius IX rescinded Gregory XIV's not-yet-animated fetus exception with regard to the spiritual penalty of excommunication, declaring that those who procured an effective abortion incurred excommunication reserved to bishops or ordinaries. From then on this penalty is incurred automatically through abortion at any stage of pregnancy, which even before was never seen as a merely venial sin.

In another respect Catholic canon law continued even after 1869 to maintain a distinction between abortion of a formed and of an unformed fetus. As indicated above in a quotation from Thomas Aquinas, one who procured the abortion of a quickened fetus was considered "irregular", meaning that he was disqualified from receiving or exercising Holy Orders. Pope Sixtus V extended this penalty even to early-term abortion (section 2 of his bull Effraenatam), but Gregory XIV restricted it again. Pius IX made no ruling in its regard, with the result that the penalty of irregularity was still limited to late-term abortion at the time of the article "Abortion" in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia. The 1917 Code of Canon Law finally did away with the distinction.

Discussions about possible justifying circumstances

In the Middle Ages, the Church condemned all abortions, and the 14th-century Dominican John of Naples is reported to have been the first to make an influential explicit statement that, if the purpose was to save the mother's life, abortion was actually permitted, provided that ensoulment had not been attained. This view met both support and rejection from other theologians. In the 16th century, while Thomas Sanchez accepted it, Antoninus de Corbuba made the distinction that from then on became generally accepted among Catholic theologians, namely that direct killing of the fetus was unacceptable, but that treatment to cure the mother should be given even if it would indirectly result in the death of the fetus.

When, in the 17th century, Francis Torreblanca approved abortions aimed merely at saving a woman's good name, the Holy Office (what is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), at that time headed by Pope Innocent XI, condemned the proposition that "it is lawful to procure abortion before ensoulment of the fetus lest a girl, detected as pregnant, be killed or defamed".

Although it is sometimes said that 18th-century Alphonsus Liguori argued that, because of uncertainty about when the soul entered the fetus, abortion, while in general morally wrong, was acceptable in circumstances such as when the mother's life was in danger, he clearly stated that it is never right to take a medicine that of itself is directed to killing a fetus, although it is lawful (at least according to general theological opinion) to give a mother in extreme illness a medicine whose direct result is to save her life, even when it indirectly results in expulsion of the fetus. While Liguori mentioned the distinction then made between animate and inanimate fetuses, he explained that there was no agreement about when the soul is infused, with many holding that it happens at the moment of conception, and said that the Church kindly followed the 40-day opinion when applying the penalties of irregularity and excommunication only on those who knowingly procured abortion of an animate fetus.

A disapproving letter published in the New York Medical Record in 1895 spoke of the Jesuit Augustine Lehmkuhl as considering craniotomy lawful when used to save the mother's life. The origin of the report was an article in a German medical journal denounced as false in the American Ecclesiastical Review of the same year, which said that, while Lehmkuhl had at an earlier stage of discussion admitted doubts and advanced tentative ideas, he had later adopted a view in full accord with the negative decision pronounced in 1884 and 1889 by the Sacred Penitentiary, which in 1869 had refrained from making a pronouncement. According to Mackler, Lehmkuhl had accepted as a defensible theory the licitness of removing even an animated fetus from the womb as not necessarily killing it, but had rejected direct attacks on the fetus such as craniotomy.

Craniotomy was thus prohibited in 1884 and again in 1889. In 1895 the Holy See excluded the inducing of non-viable premature birth and in 1889 established the principle that any direct killing of either fetus or mother is wrong; in 1902 it ruled out the direct removal of an ectopic embryo to save the mother's life, but did not forbid the removal of the infected fallopian tube, thus causing an indirect abortion.(see below).

In 1930 Pope Pius XI ruled out what he called "the direct murder of the innocent" as a means of saving the mother. And the Second Vatican Council declared: "Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."

United States

In the United States the Catholic Church were leaders in denouncing "criminal abortion" in the latter half of the 19th century. The Michigan State Medical Society journal reported in 1870 that, while most churches were "neglecting" the subject of abortion, Catholic priests were teaching that "destruction of the embryo at any period from the first instant of conception is a crime equal in guilt to that of murder," and "that to admit its practice is to open the way for the most unbridled licentiousness, and to take away the responsibility of maternity is to destroy one of the strongest bulwarks of female virtue." In 1881 the same journal reported that Catholic anti-abortion efforts had been much more successful than Protestant ones.

Recent events

The Roman Catholic Church's position on abortion has been the subject of controversy. In October 1984, Catholics for Choice (then Catholics for a Free Choice) placed an advertisement, signed by over one hundred prominent Catholics, including nuns, in the New York Times. The advertisement stated that "direct abortion...can sometimes be a moral choice" and that "responsible moral decisions can only be made in an atmosphere of freedom from fear of coercion." The Vatican took disciplinary measures against some of the nuns who signed the statement, sparking controversy among American Catholics, and intra-Catholic conflict on the abortion issue remained news for at least two years in the United States.

In the United States, there has been controversy within the Catholic Church itself, even among the bishops about the applicability to politicians who support legalization of abortion of canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion". The association American Life League claims that the giving of Communion to Catholic politicians who have promoted legalization of abortion is forbidden by canon 915, which it quotes as stating: "Those who have been ... obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." By omitting the words of the canon, "those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion", the association links "have been" with "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" and gives the impression that even a past action by a politician makes it unlawful to give him or her Communion. The word in the original Latin text of the canon is perseverantes, a present participle, referring to actual perseverance in manifest grave sin, not to a past attitude. In April 2004, Archbishop Raymond Burke forbade Senator John Kerry, a Catholic, to take communion because of his stance on abortion and possibly stem cell research. In November 2009, Bishop Thomas Tobin told Representative Patrick Kennedy that for the same reason it would be "inappropriate" for him to continue receiving the Eucharist. Burke also said that he would deny communion to Rudy Giuliani, and that Giuliani should not seek communion. Giuliani in fact had been recorded presenting himself and receiving Holy Communion from a priest at a papal Mass at St Patrick's Cathedral in April 2008. When the then Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Edward Egan, learned of the incident, he issued a press release that stated: "The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion." Earlier, in 1984, Cardinal John Joseph O'Connor, then Archbishop of New York, had contemplated excommunicating the then Governor of New York Mario Cuomo. After Joe Biden was selected as a vice presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential election, Bishop Joseph Francis Martino, bishop of Biden's original hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, said that Biden would be refused Holy Communion in that diocese because of his stance on legal abortion. However, Bishop Michael Angelo Saltarelli of Wilmington, Biden's place of residence, made no similar declaration, and only "asked" politicians like Biden not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Biden continued to attend Mass and receive Communion at his local Delaware parish. No case has been mentioned of any American politician who because of a stance on the abortion issue has actually been rejected when presenting themselves for communion. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh said that, because of "national ramifications", no individual bishop should deny communion to politicians; other bishops also opposed withholding communion, and the bishops' conference eventually decided that such matters should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Outside of the United States, there has been no such controversy about whether such politicans should be refused communion. In January 2001, Pope John Paul II gave Communion to Mayor of Rome Francesco Rutelli, whose position is that of being "personally opposed to abortion, but not willing to impose his stance through law". Similar cases are found among parliamentarians in Austria, Belgium and Germany. Asked why only in the United States are demands made for church sanctions against politicians who hold such views, Cardinal Francis George's explanation was that the United States is the only country where abortion is considered to be a right enshrined in the national constitution and not a mere matter of legislation, and that in the United States culture and laws are changed by political crusades, which politicize questions of pastoral practice within the Church.

In Mexico, the bishops made a statement envisaging excommunication politicians who voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City and in May 2007, Pope Benedict XVI expressed support. Responding to a journalist's question, "Do you agree with the excommunications given to legislators in Mexico City on the question?" the Pope said: "Yes. The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the (canon law) code. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going in Communion with the body of Christ. Thus, they (the bishops) didn't do anything new or anything surprising. Or arbitrary." According to Der Spiegel, many journalists were wondering if this support could be interpreted as a wish to excommunicate such politicians,; Time magazine reported that it was in fact such a declaration. However, church officials said that it was not a declaration but appeared to be a misunderstanding. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, clarified that the Pope was not excommunicating anyone, since the Mexican bishops had not in fact declared an excommunication, and that he did not mean to depart from a recent declaration that placed the decision to leave the Church in the hands of individual politicians. However, Lombardi said "politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion", because their action is "incompatible with participation in the Eucharist."

The Catholic Church's stance on legalization of abortion is also upheld by public figures without any prompting by the bishops. When King Baudoin of Belgium temporarily abdicated so as not to be responsible for signing into law legislation that permitted induced abortion, he did so on his own initiative, not because of being told to do so by the Church hierarchy.

In March 2009, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said that, by securing the abortion of a nine-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather, her mother and the doctors involved were excommunicated. This statement of the Archbishop drew criticism not only from women's rights groups, but also from Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who said it was unjust, and from a French bishop, who questioned the applicability, in this case, of canon 1398 to the girl's mother. In view of the interpretations that were placed upon Archbishop Fisichella's article, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a clarification reiterating that "the Church's teaching on procured abortion has not changed, nor can it change".

In November 2009, when Sister Margaret McBride, as a member of the ethics board of a Catholic hospital, allowed doctors to perform an abortion to save the life of a mother of four suffering from pulmonary hypertension, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted excommunicated her on the grounds that, while efforts should be made to save a pregnant woman's life, what he called the direct killing of an unborn child cannot be used as a means to that end.

Recent statements of the Church's position

The Church teaches that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."

Since the first century, the Church has affirmed that every procured abortion is a moral evil, a teaching that the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares "has not changed and remains unchangeable".

The Church teaches that the inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. In other words, it is beholden upon society to legally protect the life of the unborn.

Catholic theologians trace Catholic thought on abortion to early Christian teachings such as the Didache, Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Unintentional abortion

The principle of double effect is frequently cited in relation to abortion. A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may nevertheless remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the death of the embryo or fetus is foreseen as a side effect, not intended even as a means to another end, an evil means to a good end. Thus chemotherapy or removal of a cancerous organ does not abort the fetus in order to cure the cancer, but instead it cures the cancer while also having the foreseen indirect result of aborting the embryo or fetus.

Ectopic pregnancy

An ectopic pregnancy is one of the only cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI writes that "the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.

In Catholic theology, it is never permissible to evacuate the fetus using methotrexate or to incise the Fallopian tube to extract the fetus (salpingostomy), as these procedures are considered to be direct abortions.

Embryos

The Church considers the destruction of any embryo to be equivalent to abortion. The Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae states that "We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children."

Sanctions

Catholics who procure or participate in an abortion are subject to ipso facto latae sententiae excommunication under Canon law (automatic excommunication, literally by that very fact the sentence is incurred), provided that the person knows of the penalty at the time the abortion occurs.

According to a memorandum written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catholic politicians who campaign and vote for permissive abortion laws should be warned by their priest to refrain from receiving communion or risk being denied the Eucharist until they change their political views. This position is based on Canon 915 and is also supported by Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church besides the Pope himself.

Legality of abortion

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

Since the Catholic Church views procured abortion as gravely wrong, it considers it a duty to reduce its acceptance by the public and in civil legislation. While it considers that Catholics should not favour direct abortion in any field, it recognizes that Catholics may accept compromises that, while permitting direct abortions, lessen their incidence by, for instance, restricting some forms or enacting remedies against the conditions that give rise to them. It is accepted that support may be given to a political platform that contains a clause in favour of abortion but also elements that will actually reduce the number of abortions, rather than to an anti-abortion platform that will lead to their increase.

In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared: "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Catholic opinion

Opinion polls

Although the church hierarchy actively campaigns against induced abortion and its legalization in all circumstances, even in threats to a woman's life or health and pregnancy from rape, many Catholics disagree with this position, according to a number of surveys of Catholic views. Between 16% and 22% of American Catholic voters share the view that abortion should never be permitted by law, while one in fourteen British Catholics believe the same. When posed a binary question of whether abortion was acceptable or unacceptable, rather than a question of whether it should be allowed or not allowed in all or most cases, 40% of American Catholics said it was acceptable, approximately the same percentage as non-Catholics; 58% of American Catholics said it was morally wrong. The percentage of American Catholics that believe it should be legal in "all or most cases" is approximately half, with 47-54% giving this as their position. Latinos and those who attend church weekly are more likely to oppose abortion.

Reasons for dissent

Reasons for dissenting from the church's position on legality for abortion, other than finding abortion morally acceptable, include "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I think the Church is concentrating its energies too much on abortion rather than on social action" or "I do not wish to impose my views on others."

Church views on such dissent

On this long-standing phenomenon of Catholics not accepting the Catholic Church's clear teaching on moral questions such as induced abortion Pope John Paul II commented: "It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the Church’s clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error ... It has never been easy to accept the Gospel teaching in its entirety, and it never will be. The Church is committed, both in faith and morals, to make her teaching as clear and understandable as possible, presenting it in all the attractiveness of divine truth. And yet the challenge of the Gospel remains inherent in the Christian message transmitted to each generation."

United States voting preferences

In the United States, 29% of Catholic voters choose their candidate based solely on the candidate's position on abortion; most of these vote for anti-abortion candidates. 44% believe a "good Catholic" cannot vote for a pro-choice politician, while 53% believe one can. 68% of American Catholics believe that one can be a "good Catholic" while disagreeing with the church's position on abortion, approximately as many as members of other religious groups.

In his 2004 response to the United States Catholic of Catholic Bishops, the then Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that a Catholic may vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on abortion, if the voter chooses the candidate for other proportionate reasons. In a paper prepared at the same time, Archbishop William Levada, who later himself became Prefect of the same department of the Roman Curia, pointed out the complexity of forming judgments in this connection on questions of cooperation in evil actions".

Dissenting individuals and groups

Philosopher Daniel Dombrowski wrote, with Richard Deltete, A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, which analyzed Church theological history to argue that Catholic values supported a pro-choice position.

An independent organization called Catholics for Choice was founded in 1973 to support the availability of abortion, stating that this position is compatible with Catholic teachings, particularly the primacy of conscience and the importance of the laity in shaping church law. This organization was founded "to serve as a voice for Catholics" who believe that contraception and abortion are moral. Catholics for Choice believe:

Church teachings, tradition and core Catholic tenets—including the primacy of conscience, the role of the faithful in defining legitimate laws and norms, and support for the separation of church and state—leave room for supporting a more liberal position on abortion. ... Catholics can, in good conscience, support access to abortion and affirm that abortion can be a moral choice. Indeed, many of us do.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that " is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the USCCB." Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz excommunicated all members of this organization in his jurisdiction in 1996.

See also

• Religion and abortion
• Christianity and abortion
• Catholic moral theology
• Culture war
• Pro-life
• Right to life
• Sanctity of life
• Culture of life

References

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270
2. Code of Canon Law, canon 1398
3. Code of Canon Law, canons 1321-1329
4. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 1450 §2
5. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 728 §2
6. ^ Karkabi, Barbara (October 31, 2008). "Abortion not main issue for Catholics: Survey results contradict bishops' stance". Houston Chronicle.
7. ^ "Notre Dame Should Not Disinvite Obama, U.S. Catholics Tell Quinnipiac University National Poll; Attitudes On Abortion Similar Among All U.S. Voters". Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. May 14, 2009.
8. ^ Smith, Gregory; Pond, Allison (September 16, 2008). "Slight but Steady Majority Favors Keeping Abortion Legal". Pew Research Center.
9. ^ Newport, Frank (March 30, 2009). "Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells". Gallup. The same poll reported American Catholics as more permissive than American non-Catholics on sex between an unmarried man and woman, divorce, medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos, having a baby outside of marriage, gambling and homosexual relations.
10. ^ "Most UK Catholics support abortion and use of contraception". The Independent. 19 September 2010.
11. ^ "Obama, Catholics and the Notre Dame Commencement". Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. April 30, 2009.
12. Respect for Unborn Human Life: the Church's Constant Teaching
13. ^ Frank K. Flinn, J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Religions 2007 ISBN 978-0-8160-5455-8), p. 4
14. The technical juridical term "irregular" is explained below.
15. William Petersen, From Persons to People (Transaction Publishers 2002 ISBN 9780765801708), p. 114
16. Michèle Goyens, Pieter de Leemans, An Smets (editors), Science Translated: Latin and Vernacular Translations of Scientific Treatises in Medieval Europe (Leuven University Press 2008 ISBN 978 90 5867 671 9), pp. 390-396
17. The text of the bull Effraenatam is available at this site.
18. Nicholas Terpstra, Lost Girls: Sex and Death in Renaissance Florence (Johns Hopkins University Press 2010 ISBN 9780801894992), p. 91
19. "Excommunicationi latae sententiae Episcopis sive Ordinariis reservatae subiacere declaramus: ... 2. Procurantes abortum, effectu sequuto" (Apostolicae Sedis monitioni).
20. Johnstone, Brian V. (March 2005). "Early Abortion: Venial or Mortal Sin?". Irish Theological Quarterly. 70 (1): 60. An excerpt can be found here.
21. Charles Coppens, "Abortion" in Catholic Encyclopedia 1907
22. 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 985 4º
23. ^ Aaron L. Mackler, Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics (Georgetown University Press 2003 ISBN 9780878401468), p. 122
24. Mackler 2003, pp. 122-123
25. Alphonsus Maria de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis (Bassano 1831), vol. 1, p. 247
26. Charles Panati. Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions (Penguin Arcana 1996), p. 454
27. "Question 4. Is it permissible to give a mother in extreme illness medicine to expel a fetus? Reply. Firstly, it is certain that it is not permissible for a mother outside of danger of death to take medicine for expelling even an inanimate fetus, since directly impeding the life of a human being is a grave sin, and a still graver one if the fetus is animate. It is certain, secondly, that it is not permissible for a mother even in danger of death to take medicine for expelling an ensouled fetus directly, since this would be procuring the child's death directly. The question is rather whether it is permissible for a mother to take a medicine absolutely necessary to save her life when it involves danger of expulsion of the fetus. The reply is that, if the fetus is inanimate, the mother may certainly ensure her life, even though, unintentionally on her part, expulsion of the fetus results, an expulsion for which the mother is not responsible, since she is only using her natural right to preserve her life. If the fetus is animate, it is generally held that a mother may take a medicine whose direct purpose is to save her life when nothing else will save it; but it is different in the case of medicines that of themselves are directed to killing a fetus, which it is never permissible to take" (Alphonsus Maria de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis (Bassano 1831), vol. 1, pp. 247-248); cf. Timothy Lincoln Bouscaren, When Mother or Baby Must Die (originally published in 1933; reprint: Tradibooks 2008 ISBN 978-2-917813-01-0), p. 61.
28. Alphonsus Maria de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis (Bassano 1831), vol. 1, pp. 248-249
29. Medical Record vol. 48, no. 2 (13 July 1895), pp. 71-72
30. ^ A. Sabetti, "The Catholic Church and Obstetrical Science" in American Ecclesiastical Review, New Series, Vol. III (August 1895), pp.128-132
31. ^ Charles E. Curran, The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis, pp. 201-202
32. Mackler 2003, p. 123
33. Mackler 2003, p. 124
34. Report of the Special Committee on Criminal Abortion p. 378.
35. Transactions of the Washington Obstetrical and Gynecological Society
36. Dillon, Michele (1999). Catholic identity: balancing reason, faith, and power. Cambridge University Press. p. 106.
37. American Life League's Canon 915 Project
38. Hancock, David (April 6, 2004). "Kerry's Communion Controversy". CBS News.
39. "Bishop bars Patrick Kennedy from Communion over abortion". CNN. November 22, 2009.
40. "Outspoken Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke Says He'd Deny Rudy Giuliani Communion". Fox News. Associated Press. October 3, 2007.
41. http://www.ny-archdiocese.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=7945
42. Beltramini, Enrico (September 12, 2009). "Il cattolicesimo politico in America". Limes.
43. West, John G.; MacLean, Iain S. (1999). Encyclopedia of religion in American politics, Volume 2. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 98.
44. ^ "Scranton Bishop Says He will Refuse Communion to Joseph Biden". Lifesitenews.com. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-10.
45. Kirkpatrick, David (2008-09-16). "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-19.
46. Biden’s Bishop Will not Permit Him, Even if Elected VP, to Speak at Catholic Schools
47. Major, Richard (August 27, 2005). . The Tablet. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
48. ^ Sandro Magister, "Obama's Pick for Vice President Is Catholic. But the Bishops Deny Him Communion"
49. ^ John L. Allen, "The Word from Rome" in National Catholic Reporter, 28 May 2004
50. Der Spiegel. Pope Attacks Mexico City Politicians. May 10, 2007.
51. Israely, Jeff (May 9, 2007). "Pope Rejects Pro-Choice Politicians". Time.
52. "Pope arrives in Brazil with tough abortion stance". USA Today (Associated Press service). 10 May 2007.
53. "Pope condemns abortion on Latin America trip". Associated Press. May 9, 2007.
54. Duffy, Gary (March 5, 2009). "Rape row sparks excommunications". BBC.
55. "Vatican backs excommunication of Brazilian MDs over child's abortion". CBCNews. 2008-03-07. Retrieved 2009-03-07. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
56. "Top Vatican ethicist says abortion saved life of nine-year-old rape victim". The Christian Century. April 21, 2009.
57. Mgr di FALCO, évêque de Gap, sur l'excommunication au Brésil
58. The Holy Office Teaches Archbishop Fisichella a Lesson
59. Gibson, David (May 21, 2010). "Nun Excommunicated For Abortion Decision To Save Mother's Life". Politics Daily.
60. Garrison, Becky (December 30, 2010). "Playing Catholic politics with US healthcare". The Guardian. London.
61. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270
62. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2271
63. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, part 3, section 2, chapter 2, article 5: The Fifth Commandment. The Official Vatican Website.
64. Abortion, the development of the Roman Catholic perspective‎ By John R. Connery
65. McIntyre, Alison. "Doctrine of Double Effect". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2006 edition ed.). Retrieved 2007-08-18. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
66. David F. Kelly, Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics (Georgetown University Press 2004 ISBN 9781589010307), pp. 112-113
67. "Principle of Double Effect". Catholics United for the Faith. 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-18.
68. Catholic News Agency: "Sister violated more than Catholic teaching in sanctioning abortion, ethicist says" May 19, 2010
69. "Indirect abortion".
70. "ALL: The moral management of ectopic pregnancies".
71. "The National Catholic Bioethics Center - When Pregnancy Goes Awry".
72. Pope Pius VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 14, condemnation of abortion issued July 25, 1968
73. Written in "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles" by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on July 3, 2004
74. NCRegister.com "America's 'Most Complete' Catholic Newsweekly"
75. Frank K. Flinn, J. Gordon Melton (editors), Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Facts on File 2007 ISBN 9780816054558), p. 5
76. ^ Denver Catholic Register, 21 July 2004
77. ^ Jones, Robert P.; Cox, Daniel; Laser, Rachel (June 9, 2011). "Committed to Availability, Conflicted about Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars" (PDF). Public Religion Research Institute.
78. Mary T. Hanna, Catholics and American Politics (Harvard University Press 1979 ISBN 9780674103252), p. 154
79. John Finnis, Religion and Public Reasons(Oxford University Press 2011 ISBN 9780199580095), vol. 5, p. 122
80. Susan Elizabeth Davis, Women under Attack (South End Press 1999 ISBN 9780896083561), p. 61
81. Patrick W. Carey, Catholics in America (Greenwood 2004 ISBN 9780275982553), p. 135
82. Christopher Robert Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion (Taylor & Francis 2010 ISBN 9780415884686), p. 202
83. Pope John Paul II, Address to the Bishops of the United States of America, 16 September 1987
84. William J. Levada, "Reflections on Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion"
85. Keller, Rosemary Skinner; Ruether, Rosemary Radford; Cantlon, Marie (2006). Encyclopedia of women and religion in North America, Volume 3. Indiana University Press. p. 1109.
86. ^ "The Truth About Catholics and Abortion" (PDF). Catholics for Choice.
87. "About Us". Catholics for Choice.
88. NCCB/USCC President Issues Statement on Catholics for a Free Choice
89. Vatican affirms excommunication of Call to Action members in Lincoln

External Links

• M. Pangallo. The Philosophy of Saint Thomas on the Human Embryo. XII General Assembly International Congress "The Human Embryo Before Implantation"

• Abortion debate
• Catholic social teaching
• Catholic moral theology
• Christianity and abortion
• Pro-life movement