I am studying the Catholic Church and its teachings, considering the possibility of converting to Catholicism.
However, I do not understand why the Church explicitly forbids abortion even when there are medical indications involving the health or life of the mother. While the issue regarding health—in the sense that health cannot take precedence over life—is somewhat clearer, what about cases where the mother’s life itself is at risk? None of the articles I have read on this subject have provided answers to my questions.
First and foremost, I would like to cite a response from the Holy Office.
The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.
Wikipedia:
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. The Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes”.
To begin with, this is the first part of my questions; I will save the rest for another time so that there is sufficient space to address them. My questions are as follows:
-
Are these positions objectively morally infallible, or are they subject to revision?
-
Is it truly just to prohibit abortion—the termination of a fetus or child—in cases where the mother might objectively die, leaving the child an orphan, or leaving an entire family without a mother? This is a very difficult question for me. If this is an infallible teaching, is this really what God desires?
It is often stated that there is never a necessity to kill a fetus; however, based on the information I have, certain medical conditions—particularly cardiovascular issues—may necessitate an abortion rather than other forms of treatment.
- As mentioned above, in 1902 it was ruled that the direct removal of an ectopic embryo to save the mother’s life was impermissible, though the removal of an infected fallopian tube—which results in an indirect abortion—was not prohibited. I am not entirely clear: is this still the current practice? I have come across information suggesting that Catholic directives permit the removal of a fallopian tube, but not the induction of labor. Is the presence of an infection a strict requirement, or has the doctrine evolved such that the ectopic pregnancy itself is sufficient?
I struggle to understand: does this not create a risk of death for women, especially in situations where it is clear that the child cannot be saved?
There is this report—which I assume may have been produced by those with a liberal perspective, though I believe it still warrants consideration. Please forgive any errors in my English, as it is not my native language; I am happy to rephrase if necessary. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/healthcaredenied.pdf
- Are there any works by moral theologians that discuss the boundaries of this practice? What could be changed—or would that constitute a moral heresy?
I earnestly request an answer to these questions; they trouble and frighten me greatly, and I am unable to find an objective answer to them.