A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook

A Pro-Life Handbook
By Brian Clowes, Ph.D.

Foreword by Rev. Frank Papa, S.O.L.T., J.C.D. Introduction by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro-Carmbula, J.D., S.T.D.
Pastoral
Human Life International
Nihil obstat: Imprimatur:
Reverend Thomas J. Lehning Censor Librorum + Paul S. Loverde Bishop of Arlington July 14, 2010
The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or statements expressed. 2010 Human Life International Human Life International 4 Family Life Lane Front Royal, Virginia 22630 USA www.hli.org All rights reserved. Portions of this book may be reproduced for educational purposes provided full credit is given. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN: 978-1-55922-058-3
Contents
Contraception
1. Married couples, HIV and condoms.............................. 1 2. The birth control pill for acne. ........................................ 4 3. Contraception to alleviate overpopulation...................... 5 4. Why doesnt the Church change its teachings on contraception?......................................................... 9 5. Promoting contraception to reduce abortion................ 11 6. Depo-Provera Abortifacient or contraceptive?. ......... 16 7. Sterilization to protect the mothers health................... 18 8. Sterilization in the later years........................................ 22 9. Conscience and contraception...................................... 25 10. Contraception for teens doing it anyway................. 30 11. Natural Family Planning and a drunken husband. ...... 32 12. The morning-after pill and rape............................... 34 13. Imposing my values regarding contraception........... 35 14. Natural Family Planning as Catholic birth control.. 36 15. Contraception and the very poor family..................... 39
Abortion
16. Fatal birth defects and abortion.................................. 42 17. Rape, incest and abortion........................................... 44 18. Young girls and secret abortions. ................................ 47 19. Unrepentant abortion and Holy Communion. ........... 50 20. Should only women speak about abortion?. ................ 53 21. Thousands of women dying of illegal abortions....... 55 22. Ectopic pregnancy, abortion, and the double effect. . 58
iii
iv
Pro-Life Handbook 23. Pro-abortion politicians presenting themselves for Communion......................................................... 61 24. Abortion and the role of guilt..................................... 63 25. Free choice and abortion......................................... 65 26. Its her body, isnt it?................................................... 67
End of Life Issues

27. Nutrition, hydration and quality of life................... 70 28. End of life care and painkillers................................... 72 29. Living wills and other advance directives................. 76 30. Death with Dignity................................................. 78
Homosexuality
31. Blessing their union?.................................................. 81 32. Sinfulness................................................................... 84 33. Civil Rights................................................................ 85 34. Credibility of the Church........................................... 87
The Sacrament of Matrimony

35. Living together before marriage.................................. 90 36. Annulment for abused wife........................................ 93
Assisted Reproductive Technologies

37. Infertile couples. ......................................................... 96 38. In-vitro fertilization. ................................................... 98 39. Surrogate motherhood ............................................ 101
This book is a compact and indispensable guide for priests, seminarians and active lay people who need to answer difficult moral questions in a concise and understandable manner. Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B.* 1920 - 2010 Founder of Human Life International
*This statement was given by Fr. Marx in the summer of 2009.
Chapter 1
Contraception
1. Married couples, HIV and condoms A married couple in my parish came to me for coun seling. He is HIV positive; she is not. In this very special case, may I counsel them to use condoms? From a purely scientific viewpoint, condoms are a dismal failure not only at preventing pregnancy, but also at stopping the transmission of HIV. In fact, HIV/ AIDS rates are highest precisely in nations where condoms are used the most.1 One study followed a number of couples where the husband was HIV positive, the wife did not have HIV, and they used condoms faithfully every time they had sexual relations. After only eighteen months, thirty percent of the wives were HIV positive!2 A summary of studies by the family planners bible, Contraceptive Technology, showed that, of more than 25,000 condoms, one in twelve suffered a catastrophic failure: tearing, breaking, or slipping off.3 This means that condoms actually help promote not prevent the widespread transmission
1
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook
of HIV due to the false sense of security that they promote. The situation where a serodiscordant couple is having marital relations while using condoms is no different than the husband holding a gun to his wifes head with one out of twelve chambers having a bullet in it. Sooner or later, the gun is going to fire maybe even on the first try! If you are confronted with a situation where a husband has HIV but his wife does not, there are only two possible choices: abstinence or a death sentence for the wife. This is a harsh and very unpleasant reality, but if a husband in this situation truly loves his wife, he will want what is best for her and will not endanger her. Despite what the world teaches, nobody has died from not having sex. Rather, millions have died from having too much sex. In certain situations, the husband may have been aware that he was HIV positive on the day he married his wife. Although being HIV positive is not an impediment to marriage in and of itself, if he concealed the fact that he was indeed HIV positive at the time of the marriage, an action against the validity of the marriage could most probably be brought on the grounds of fraud. If he contracted HIV through extramarital sex after marriage, there are legitimate grounds for separation of the spouses. Sexual relations are a source of grace in a marriage,
Contraception
and promote a special bond between husband and wife. However, as strange as it may sound in todays world, sex is not necessary for a person to live, and it is not even necessary in a marriage particularly when the life of one of the spouses may very well be lost as a result. A wifes efforts to preserve her own life in this situation are not selfish; she is performing her duty before God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls (2280).
1. See Human Life Internationals full-color pro-life research brochure on condoms, which is a complete scientific rebuttal to the claim that condoms prevent pregnancy and HIV. This brochure includes the results of a study that shows that HIV rates are highest in African nations whose people use the most condoms. The brochure is available from HLI and is also on HLIs Pro-Life CD Library. 2. Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children and Household Contacts of Adults with AIDS. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), February 6, 1987. 3. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (17th Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998). Table 163, Prospective Studies of Condom Breakage and Slippage, pages 330 to 332.
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370.
2. The birth control pill for acne A local doctor put one of my young woman parish ioners on the birth control pill to help clear up her severe case of acne. Is this good medical practice? Prescribing the birth control pill or oral contraceptive (OC) for an off-label purpose is certainly not good medical practice. Perhaps some doctors want to avoid the possibility of causing birth defects in unborn children with anti-acne products such as Accutane, which have proven to be teratogenic (causing birth defects). Some OC manufacturers advertise that they help improve the complexions of young women. However, this is merely a side effect. The purpose of the OC is to render women infertile. OCs have many serious negative side effects, including stroke, heart attack, and deep vein thrombosis. These dangers far outweigh the incidental cosmetic benefits of OC use. A doctor should simply prescribe a medication whose purpose is to clear up acne. New medical advances in dermatology have made the oral contraceptive obsolete for the purpose of clearing up a womans complexion, and prescribing them for this purpose is bad medical practice. After all, the doctor would not prescribe an acne medicine to limit fertility, would he? In summary, a physician who prescribes the OC to
Contraception
clear up a womans complexion is willing to chemically mutilate her entire reproductive system. Some doctors will use any excuse to get young women on the birth control pill. Another problem is that a young woman who is not sexually active but who is taking the OC for cosmetic reasons may be tempted to engage in sexual activity because she believes that she is safe from pregnancy. Her boyfriend(s) may also see her OC use as a green light for sexual activity and put pressure on her to comply with their desires. Doctors who prescribe OCs for cosmetic reasons are therefore leading women into a near occasion of sin. 3. Contraception to alleviate overpopulation I have seen in many news reports that the United Nations and the local Family Planning Association say that my country is overpopulated. May I say that contraception is allowable since it will help cut down on hunger and alleviate resource shortages? Ever since Paul Ehrlich wrote his atrocious and misleading book The Population Bomb in 1968, people everywhere have been frightened by overpopulation. However, the facts show that there never was an overpopulation problem in the world and that there never will be.
We often hear that the population of the world is doubling every 35 years and that we have 90 million new mouths to feed every year. But, in reality, the rate of world population increase has been declining steeply since 1970, when it was 2.02 percent per year. Now (2010), the population of the world is growing by only 0.92 percent per year. According to the United Nations Population Information Network, the population of the world will stop growing in about the year 2040.1 The current (2010) population of the world is about 6.9 billion persons. The population of the world will only gain a little more than one billion more people and will level out at 8.0 billion in 2040. The world population will then begin to decline.2 The future of the world can be seen in Europe, where the continent is actually now losing more than one million people per year, and will lose a total of onesixth of its population by the year 2050.3 The problem is not overpopulation, it is population maldistribution. Government policies, corruption, lack of authentic economic development, and armed conflicts cause millions to flee from the countryside, where they can make a living, and flock to the large cities, where they often cannot find a job. Some people have toured a large city such as Nairobi or Manila and then proceeded to proclaim how bad the overpopulation problem is without ever taking
Contraception
a look at the vast empty areas of country! This is like visiting a beehive and then saying that the world is full of bees. Contraception is not the answer to poverty and population maldistribution. Authentic economic development that allows people to make their livelihoods in the countryside is the answer. This includes rural electrification, improved roads, construction of schools and medical clinics, clean drinking water, and improved agricultural techniques and grain storage facilities. If families need to limit the number of births, they can turn to safe and effective forms of Natural Family Planning (NFP). These have been taught to millions of people, many of whom cannot read, by the Drs. Billings and Mother Teresas Missionaries of Charity, among many others. All that contraception does in the long run is turn large poor families into small poor families. It does nothing to further the goals and potential of a nation. After all, two thousand years ago the population of the world was less than one-fortieth of what it is now, and Our Lord said then that The poor you will always have with you (Matthew 26:11). When the rich nations push contraception on the Third World, they are engaging in the worst form of imperialism. The rich countries are not particularly interested in the standard of living in the Third World; they just want less people to live in it. A secret
document written by the United States government in 1974, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, or NSSM-200, revealed the real reason for population control programs: The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.4 Family size should not be determined by the United Nations or by the rich nations of the West. One good way to clarify your questioners attitude towards contraception is to ask them if they would support it if the population of the world were only one billion instead of nearly seven billion. If they answer yes, then they are just trying to distract you with talk about overpopulation. They obviously support contraception for other reasons having nothing to do with the state of population in the world or in your country.
1. The United Nations Population Information Network (POPIN) at http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp has more than 30 demographic indicators for every country and region in the world over the period 1950 to 2050, including gross popula-
Contraception
tion, total fertility rate, population growth rate, and median age. Be sure to use the low variant when searching, because this is historically the most accurate prediction. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. The full text of NSSM-200, and an HLI analysis of the document, is on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library. See also: Evangelium Vitae, 16, 91, on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
4. Why doesnt the Church change its teachings on contraception? Why doesnt the Church change its teachings on contraception to stay in step with modern practice and with the public opinion polls, which show that the majority of Catholics approve of its use? Some people say that, since the Church has changed its rules and regulations on other matters such as the liturgy, female altar servers, and whether or not women should wear head coverings at Mass, that it can also change its teachings on contraception. The fundamental question here is the limits of the Churchs authority. The Church can indeed change its own liturgy to a certain extent because this is within its authority and is a human law. When speaking of contraception and related issues,
10
we must understand that the Church is the guardian of our interpretation of the Natural Law. Since the Natural Law was given to us by God and is unchanging, the Church does not have the authority to alter its fundamental moral principles. A favorite tactic of those who favor contraception is to list the results of various public opinion polls and surveys showing that 80 to 90 percent of Catholic couples in the West use or approve of contraception, or that a large percentage of priests or theology professors condone its use. Therefore, they argue, it must be all right for Catholics to use contraception. Sadly, it is true that most married Western couples use contraception. But matters of Faith and morals can never be put to a vote. The opinion of the majority is not the valid guide for moral teachings. For all Christians, the will of God is the guide. When a couple uses artificial contraception, they are directly interfering with Gods design for their reproduction. Catholics have a further guide: the teachings of the Pope. It does not matter what dissident Catholic priests or lay people say; even if they are in the minority, Catholics of good (not just convenient) conscience must follow God and the Pope.
See Chapter 21 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Contraception, for a more detailed history and exposition of the Catholic Churchs teachings on it.
Contraception
11
5. Promoting contraception to reduce abortion I know that the Church teaches that contraception is sinful, but surely abortion is a much worse sin, since it cuts off the life of a human being which has already been created by God. Should we not sup port contraception because it cuts down on abor tion? The idea that contraception helps cut down on abortion is promoted by every pro-abortion and population control group in the world. This is a concept that seems to make sense, since contraception is indeed designed to prevent pregnancies. Of course, contraception would cut down on abortions if only two conditions were met if the contraception worked perfectly, and if human beings were perfect as well. These conditions will never be met, considering the state of science and human nature. When contraceptive manufacturers and promoters talk about their products, they always refer to the method effectiveness rate, which is how well contraception works if it is used perfectly every time by perfectly healthy and perfectly attentive men and women. A more useful and honest measure is the user effectiveness rate, sometimes called the real-world effectiveness rate, which includes human error. The International Planned Parenthood Federa-
12
tion (IPPF) does more than any other organization to spread abortion and contraception around the world. Its first Medical Director, Malcolm Potts, said:
As has been pointed out, those who use contraceptives are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion. ... The epidemiological evidence that has been surveyed in this and preceding chapters points to the fact that induced abortion services are most needed by those adopting any form of fertility regulation. ... No developed country has brought down its birth rate without a considerable recourse to abortion, and it appears unlikely that developing countries can ever hope to see any decline in their fertility without a massive resort to induced abortion legal or illegal.1
As contraception use goes up, so does the demand for abortion, since contraception fails so often. In the United States, where all forms of modern contraception have been widely available for nearly half a century, nearly two-thirds of women obtaining abortions were using contraception when they became pregnant.2 It is also interesting to note that more than one hundred nations have legalized abortion to one extent or another and every single one of them first legalized contraception, because the family planners and population controllers know full well that contraception use and failure will lead to demands for legalized abortion.
Contraception
13
Perhaps the most direct way that contraception leads to abortion is that, when couples use it, they are consciously and deliberately closing themselves off to the gift of life. When their contraceptive method fails, as it so often does, they see the resulting child not as a gift from God, but as a mistake, and thus feel that technology has let them down. They feel entitled to an abortion, since they had already made an effort to avoid having a child. During this kind of discussion, we must absolutely not lose sight of the fact that the Catholic Church has always taught that the use of contraception is mortally sinful. Indeed, those couples who use it are generally unhappier than those couples who use Natural Family Planning (NFP), and contracepting couples suffer a much higher divorce rate than couples who use NFP.3 As it has been said so often, God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but nature never forgives.
1. Malcolm Potts, Peter Diggory, and John Peel. Abortion [Cambridge University Press, 1977], pages 491, 496, 498 and 526. 2. Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. Abortion Patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use. Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1996, pages 140 to 143; Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Stanley K. Henshaw. Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, November/December 2002, pages 294 to 303.
14
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook 3. The United States divorce rate among married couples using contraception is almost fifty percent. Several studies of NFP users show a divorce rate of anywhere from one percent to six percent [authors personal survey of fourteen large NFP teaching groups and leaders in the United States]. See Chapter 21 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Contraception, for a more detailed scientific explanation of the various types of contraception and for the history of the Catholic Churchs teachings on it. Table 1 FirstYear Pregnancy Rates for Women Using Various Methods of Birth RegulationA
Method Used True Contraceptives No Method Used Spermicides Only Withdrawal Cervical Cap with Spermicide Women with Previous Children Women with No Previous Children Contraceptive Sponge Women with Previous Children Women with No Previous Children Diaphragm with Spermicide
B
Method Failure Rate 85% 18% 4% 26% 9% 20% 9% 6%
User Failure Rate 85% 29% 27% 32% 16% 32% 16% 16%
Contraception Male Condom Female Condom (Reality)C Female Sexual Sterilization Male Sexual Sterilization 2% 5% 0.5% 0.1% 15% 21% 0.5% 0.15%
15
A. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (18th Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 2004]. Table 311 on page 792. B. Spermicides include foams, creams, gels, vaginal suppositories, and vaginal films. C. The female condom Reality is known as Femy in Spain and Femidom in the rest of the world. Method Used Abortifacients Combined Pill and Minipill Low Dose OC in Teenagers Evra Patch NuvaRing Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) ParaGard (Copper T) Mirena (LNGIUS) DepoProvera Injectable Norplant/Lunelle Implantable RU486 Abortion Pill Calendar Rhythm
D
Method Failure Rate 0.3% 3.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
User Failure Rate 8% 10%-15% 8% 8% 0.8% 0.1% 3% 3%
Natural Family Planning (NFP)E 9%
16
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) SymptoThermal Method (STM) PostOvulation Method 3% 2% 1%
D. Annual rates are not applicable since RU-486 effectiveness is measured on a per-use basis. E. Eight major studies on the effectiveness of typical methods of Natural Family Planning in the 1990s show an average user failure rate of 2.8% [Bob Ryder and Hubert Campbell. Natural Family Planning in the 1990s. The Lancet, July 22, 1995, page 233; Bob Ryder. Natural Family Planning: Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church. British Medical Journal, 1993; 307:723726].
6. Depo-Provera Abortifacient or contraceptive? A woman in my parish is considering using De poProvera. Her doctor told her that it is a contra ceptive because it does not end the human life that has already begun in her womb. What is the truth regarding DepoProvera? Depo-Provera is one of a class of steroid hormones that employ powerful hormones to control the female reproductive system. Others in this class include the intra-uterine device (IUD), birth control pills or oral contraceptives (OCs), the morning-after pill (MAP) and emergency contraception (EC), and the implantables (Norplant, Jadelle and Implanon). DepoProveras active ingredient is depotmedroxy-
Contraception
17
progesterone acetate (DMPA), a synthetic form of the natural hormone progesterone. Upjohn Pharmaceuticals is the corporation that produces Depo-Provera. According to Upjohns patient information pamphlet on DepoProvera, the compound inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation and results in endometrial thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive effect.1 The pamphlet also says that DepoProvera: [Has a] contraceptive effect produced by inhibiting the secretion of gonadotropins (FSH, LH), which prevents follicular maturation and ovulation; and, Suppresses the endometrium [the mucous membrane lining the uterus] and changes cervical mucus. In other words, Upjohn acknowledges that DepoProvera acts as an abortifacient. The authoritative Contraceptive Technology confirms that DepoProvera has a threeway mode of action. It inhibits ovulation and thickens cervical mucus (which are both contraceptive actions), but it also alters the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) so that its degree of receptivity to the blastocyst (very early developing human being) is significantly decreased. According to Contraceptive Technology, Other con-
18
traceptive actions include the development of a shallow and atrophic (thinning) endometrium ... When Depo-Provera works by not allowing implantation of the newly conceived individual, it is an abortifacient.2
1. Patient information brochure. Now Available in the U.S.: Depo Provera Contraceptive Injection. Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company, December 1992. 2. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (18th Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc.], 2004. Chapter 20, Depo Provera Injections, Implants, and Progestin Only Pills (Minipills), pages 461 to 494.
7. Sterilization to protect the mothers health A 35yearold woman in my parish has six children and is in very poor health. Her doctor has recom mended that she get her tubes tied and had told her that another pregnancy may well endanger her life. Should I advise her that she may proceed with the sterilization because her children need her? Unless the woman is suffering from a pernicious disease that directly affects her reproductive organs, there is no known medical condition that is made worse by pregnancy. Of course, pregnancy can be made more dangerous and challenging if a woman does not take clinical precautions for pre-existing conditions.
Contraception
19
This fact, that pregnancy does not endanger health, has been acknowledged by medical professionals since as early as 1955: Reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson said in 1990 that The situation where the mothers life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: the birth of a healthy child.1 The Father of Fetology, Hymie Gordon, M.D., said that In more than 25 years now of medical practice, I have come to learn that if a woman is healthy enough to become pregnant, she is healthy enough to complete the term in spite of heart disease, liver disease, almost any disease. As far as Im concerned, there are no medical indications for terminating a pregnancy.2 Dr. Jasper Williams, Jr., of the Bernard Hospital in Chicago, Past President of the National Medical Association, has said that Doctors now have the tools and the knowledge with which to work so that they can handle almost any disease a patient may have, whether that patient is pregnant or not, and without interrupting the pregnancy.3
20
Former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop, said that The lifeofthemother argument surfaces in every debate concerning abortion. The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.4 A doctor who recommends sterilization is often mindful of malpractice litigation. For many OBGYNs, the ideal situation from a standpoint of financial risk is to have pregnancies only among young and healthy patients, and this factor often motivates medical decisions. The sterilization of a woman (or man) for the purpose of rendering the person sterile in the absence of a life-threatening disease that infects the reproductive organs in question is always gravely sinful. The principle of the double effect, which is more completely described under Question 22, applies to sexual sterilization. The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following five conditions are all met: a. The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. b. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.
Contraception
21
c. The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. d. There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. e. There is no other alternative available to solve the problem. As an example, if a woman who is not pregnant must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but it is not a sinful act (provided the above conditions are met). However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.5 If a married couple has a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, they may use the post-ovulation method of Natural Family Planning, which allows marital relations during the completely infertile portion of the cycle, and which has a 99 percent annual pregnancy avoidance rate.
1. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives State Affairs Committee, 16 February 1990. 2. Address of October 15, 1974. 3. Address of October 19, 1981. 4. Everett Koop, M.D. The Right to Live, the Right to Die [Toronto, Canada: Life Cycle Books], 1991, page 61.
22
5. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae (14), July 25, 1968; and Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, (27), October 29, 1951. See Chapter 3 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Health Exceptions for Abortion, for a more detailed theological and scientific explanation of the double effect and of rape, incest, eugenics and mothers health exceptions for abortion.
8. Sterilization in the later years A couple in my parish are in their early forties. They have five children. Three years ago, they had a dis abled child, and want to know if one of them can be sterilized because they believe that the probability of having another disabled child is high at this time in their lives. Generally, when there is no family history, the actual risk of having a baby with a birth defect is actually quite low, as shown below.
Risk of Fetal Birth Defects According to the Mothers Age Age of Mother 15 20 25 Risk of Downs SyndromeA 0.03% (1 of 3,333) 0.05% (1 of 1,867) 0.08% (1 of 1,296) Total Risk of All Genetic Abnor malitiesB 0.22% (1 of 455) 0.33% (1 of 306) 0.47% (1 of 213) % of Healthy Babies 99.78% 99.67% 99.53%
Contraception 30 35 40 45 0.11% (1 of 900) 0.28% (1 of 360) 0.92% (1 of 109) 1.10% (1 of 91) 0.68% (1 of 148) 1.69% (1 of 59) 5.61% (1 of 18) 6.71% (1 of 15)
23
99.32% 98.31% 94.39% 93.29%
A. Hippocrates Magazine, May/June 1988, pages 68 and 69, and March 21, 1980 letter from Hymie Gordon, M.D., Chairman, Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, to Nona Aguilar. B. Includes incidence of Downs Syndrome, alpha antitrypsin enzyme deficiency, alpha thalassemia, beta thalassemia (Cooleys anemia), cystic fibrosis, Duchennes muscular dystrophy, fragile X syndrome, hemophilia, anencephaly, spina bifida, polycystic kidney disease, sex chromosome abnormalities, sickle cell anemia, TaySachs disease, trisomy 13 (Patau Syndrome) and trisomy 18 (Edwards Syndrome).
If there is an immediate family history of a particular birth defect, especially that of a previous child, the probability of the same birth defect occurring in subsequent children is sometimes much higher than shown above. However, this depends on the specific condition. It is an unfortunate if understandable fact that many OB-GYNs like to play it safe, because their malpractice insurance premiums are so high. This means that they often over-state the risk of fetal birth defects, especially to older couples. The Catholic Church has always taught that mutilation of the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, is
24
gravely sinful. The Church condemns sexual sterilization for the same reason that it would oppose a person cutting off his own thumbs. In his address to the Congress of Urology on October 8, 1953, Pope Pius XII outlined the specific conditions under which sterilization (or any bodily mutilation, for that matter) may be performed:
Three things condition the moral permission of a surgical operation requiring an anatomical or functional mutilation: (1) that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism (this is the principle of totality); (2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured; and (3) that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc. (As far as sterilization is concerned), the conditions which would justify disposing of a part in favor of the whole in virtue of the principle of totality are lacking. It
Contraception is not therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy oviducts if the life or (physical) health of the mother is not threatened by their continued existence.
25
Pope Paul VIs 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (14) held sterilization and abortion to be equally condemned:
... the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2399. Also see Chapter 3 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Health Exceptions for Abortion, for a more detailed theological and scientific explanation of rape, incest, eugenics and mothers health exceptions for abortion, contraception and sterilization.
9. Conscience and contraception One of my women parishioners has a masters degree in theology. She has told me that she has studied the topic of contraception in great depth, including Church teachings on the matter. She says that, after
26
this study, her conscience tells her that she can use birth control in good faith. I know that the Catho lic Church teaches that contraception is mortally sinful, but why is it wrong? The Catholic Church teaches that certain actions are intrinsically evil. This means that no man-made (or even Church-made) law can make them moral, and no government, organization or person can proclaim such actions to be good, no matter how many complicated rationalizations they might offer. Indulging in evil, even allegedly in the service of the good, always leads to more evil, and is illicit. Those who claim that their conscience allows them to do something sinful completely misunderstand the role of the human conscience, which is to witness to the moral law, not to be the source of morality. In other words, the conscience is a pupil, not a teacher. People who use conscience to justify an intrinsically evil act are saying in essence non serviam, or I will not serve. Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver clearly outlined the role of conscience in his 1998 pastoral letter Of Human Life:
Catholics, like all people, are always obligated to follow their consciences on birth control and every other matter. But thats not where the problem lies. The prob-
Contraception lem lies in the formation of ones conscience. A conscientious person seeks to do good and avoid evil. ... Truth is objective. In other words, its real, is independent of us, and exists whether we like it or not. Therefore, conscience cant invent right and wrong. Rather, conscience is called to discover the truth of right and wrong, and then to submit personal judgments to the truth once it is found. Church teaching on the regulation of births, like all her moral teachings, is a sure guide for forming our consciences according to the truth. For we have the certainty of faith, as Vatican II reminds us, that the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals are not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (Lumen Gentium, 12). Too often, we use conscience as a synonym for private preference, a kind of pious alibi for doing what we want or taking the easy road. We only end up by hurting others and ourselves (emphasis in the original).
27
People who say that they can make up their own minds regarding sexual morality do not have informed consciences they have malformed consciences. What they are really saying is, If I feel comfortable with this act, then it is all right. Becoming comfortable with sin is the beginning of a deadly cancer of the soul and leads directly to moral relativism, which is making up our own set of rules as we go along. The Catechism tells us
28
that The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings (1783). The Catholic Church has always taught that contraception is mortally sinful, because it not only divides sperm from egg, but husband from wife and both from God. In fact, every Protestant denomination on Earth taught that contraception was gravely sinful until the Anglicans Lambeth Conference of 1930. The damage wrought by contraception can be seen by the fact that every mainline Protestant denomination now accepts birth control and every one of them is dying out. Contraception is immoral from a variety of secular points of view as well, because it aggressively erodes society, marriage and family, and respect for human life: 1. Contraception fails frequently more than two million times each year in the United States alone. Since the parents were trying to avoid a child in the first place, they often feel entitled to have an abortion, since they see themselves as victims of failed technology. Nearly twothirds of the women obtaining abortions in the USA were using contraception when they conceived.1 This is the most direct way that contraception leads to abortion. 2. Contraception makes the wife constantly avail-
Contraception
29
able to the husband sexually, thereby bypassing other channels of communication. Many studies have shown that those married couples using contraception have a divorce rate close to fifty percent, while couples using Natural Family Planning (NFP) have a divorce rate of about three percent.2
1. Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. Abortion Patients 19941995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use. Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1996, pages 140 to 143; Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Stanley K. Henshaw. Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 20002001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, November/December 2002, pages 294 to 303. 2. United States Census Bureau. Reference Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office], 2008 Edition. Table 1302, Marriage and Divorce Rates, by Country: 1990 to 2005. The entire Statistical Abstract is on-line at www.census. gov/compendia/statab/. For divorce rates among NFP users: Authors survey of 14 major national U.S. NFP teaching groups and leaders. The average number is about three percent (the range is from 1 percent to 6 percent). For further reading on this topic, see the following, which are all on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library; (1) Gaudium et Spes, 1617, 50; (2) Veritatis Splendor, 6162; and (3)The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1751, 1778, 1780, 1783, 1790 and 2370.
30
10. Contraception for teens doing it anyway I am sorry to say that many of the young people in my parish have little or no selfdiscipline. They fol low the examples of their peers and even their par ents in many cases, and engage in various types of sexual activity freely. Since it would be tragic for a young girl to face having a child or, worse yet, an abortion, can we priests look the other way if they use contraception? After all, they are going to en gage in sex anyway, so they might as well be safe. All people and especially young people live up to our expectations for them. Unfortunately, they also live down to our expectations for them. They look to older people for guidance and example, whether or not they are willing to admit it. If we treat them as if they are no better than animals and simply assume that they are going to fornicate anyway and throw condoms at them, then they are going to have sex. It is as simple as that. Often, people say that giving birth control to teenagers in schools or clinics will not lead to sexual behavior. This is as illogical as saying if we give them cars, it will not lead to driving behavior. If we emphasize that we have high expectations for young people, that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that we know that they will make the right decisions, they will be much more likely to abstain
Contraception
31
from sex and avoid all of the terrible worries and problems that accompany premarital sexual activity. If we expect little of our young people, then that is what they will give us. If we expect much of them, they will give us much. Parents have more influence on their children than religion, their friends, or school. Unfortunately, in todays world, parents often give their children bad example. As a rule, contracepting parents beget fornicating teenagers. The Catholic Church is suffering from the impacts of an uncatechized generation, and we must win our children back from a world whose paramount message is, If it feels good, do it. This huge task may very well take a generation or more, but are not the souls of millions worth the trouble? We must never despair. A practical, rather than a religious, appeal usually works best with teenagers because many of them really think that they can enjoy life now and worry about religion and the disposition of their souls decades later in their lives. The best way to reach young people is to train other young people in chastity, and then have them teach their friends at seminars and other events. One effective way of turning young people away from premarital sex, abortion and contraception is to show them how engaging in such activities clutters up their minds with burdensome and oppressive worries.
32
Teenagers who are chaste do not have the following very urgent worries: Unwanted pregnancy and single motherhood; Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and AIDS; Loss of their selfrespect; Loss of their reputation; Worrying about what their parents will think; The terrible side-effects of contraception and abortifacients; Where to raise money for an abortion, and its severe physical and emotional impacts; Raising children alone in poverty; Difficulty in finding a good husband or wife; and, most importantly, Fear of loss of their soul!
By contrast, teenagers who are chaste suffer from none of these terrible troubles and are free to turn their eyes towards higher things their education, their future, and God. 11. Natural Family Planning and a drunken husband A young married woman in my parish wants to use Natural Family Planning, but her husband frequent ly gets drunk and demands sexual relations during her fertile period. She has had three children in a little over three years and is having a terrible time
Contraception
33
taking care of her family without his help. May she use a barrier method of contraception during her fertile times? Does anyone really think that, if the wife makes herself continually sexually available to such an irresponsible husband, her situation is going to improve? All she is doing is giving in to his despicable behavior and enabling him to continue it. This is not the way to treat a bully or a drunk. Drunkenness is a mortal sin, and we do not use one mortal sin to cover up another. If there is any situation that demands intervention from the priest and the people of a parish, this is it. Either you must speak firmly to this husband yourself, or his friends or other Catholic men must speak to him (see Matthew 18:15-17). This is certainly a matter of justice not only for the wife and her children, but for the man as well. Simply allowing him to continue his behavior will lead to untold misery, and, most likely, the eventual breakup of the family. The community and the Church must come to the aid of this family, but must be very careful to adhere to the principles of charity and confidentiality. If meetings with the husband do not work, it may be necessary to remove the husband (for treatment) or the wife and children from the situation. This is where the resources of a close-knit parish can be brought to bear in support of the victims of such behavior.
34
The idea here is to modify the husbands behavior, not to enable it to continue. The use of contraception will only make matters worse. Our job is to bring the husband back to God, not to push the wife away from Him. 12. The morning-after pill and rape A local Catholic hospital gives the morning-after pill (Plan B) to women who have been raped. Is this policy in line with Catholic teachings? Barr Pharmaceuticals manufactures the Plan B pills, and its patient information pamphlet states that This product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation). If a drug works by preventing the attachment of a newly conceived human being to the wall of the uterus, it is acting as an abortifacient. This fact led to the Pontifical Academy for Life issuing an October 2000 statement that stated ... from the ethical standpoint, the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morningafter pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly cooperate with this procedure, are also morally responsible for it.1
Contraception
35
Therefore, we should treat the abortifacient Plan B morning-after pill and so-called emergency contraception in the same manner as we would handle Depo-Provera, the birth control pill (OC), Norplant and the intrauterine device (IUD). All of these work to end the life of the early developing human being and are therefore inadmissible.
1. Pontifical Academy for Life. Statement on the So-Called Morning-After Pill, October 31, 2000. This document is available on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
13. Imposing my values regarding contraception One of my parishioners said that, as a priest, I should preach on the Gospel and not impose my values on my congregation regarding Catholic teachings on contraception and other issues regarding human sexuality. What should I say to her? Priests who care about the state of the souls of their parishioners often find it difficult to preach against the galaxy of sexual mortal sins that include fornication, homosexual acts, adultery, contraception, sterilization, masturbation, the use of pornography and divorce. However, it is safe to say that these sexual sins account for the loss of more souls than any other type of sin. Because this is so, it is your sacred duty as a priest to talk about values.
36
Let us make one thing clear. Although they certainly are your values (as they should be), they are, more importantly, the eternal values of Jesus Christ, of His Church, and of the Holy Bible. Many priests, especially in the West, have decided not to rock the boat, and so they do not talk about such touchy subjects. Certainly if the priest avoids speaking of these things, his congregation will feel much more comfortable but is he doing his job? He must ask himself what obstacles he is placing in the way of the Devil, who wants nothing more than a silent Church. When a person angrily tells you not to impose your values on a particular subject, you have obviously struck a nerve. Perhaps you can offer to meet with the person to find out why he or she reacted in such a negative fashion. This often leads to healing and repentance.
For a large selection of materials that assist priests in preaching fearlessly against abortion and other evils, visit the Web site of Priests for Life at www.priestsforlife.org.
14. Natural Family Planning as Catholic birth control I was listening to a radio debate between a Catho lic man and a woman who works for a family plan ning organization. She claimed that Natural Family
Contraception
37
Planning as approved by the Church is just a form of Catholic birth control. Is she right on this point? The difference between artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP) is all in the attitude of the husband and wife. When a couple contracepts, they say to God we will try to frustrate Your will if it is to create a child and will take action to negate it (through abortion) if You do create a child. When a couple uses NFP, they instead say we will allow every one of our marital acts to be open to Your will, regardless of whether the probability of conception is likely or remote, and will respect Your awesome gift of fertility in exactly the form You gave it to us. In Familiaris Consortio (32), Pope John Paul II explained that the fundamental difference between contraception and NFP lies in the worldview of the people involved:
... theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: It is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and
38
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook selfcontrol. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live a personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context, the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way, sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never used as an object that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at Gods creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person. (emphasis in the original)
Humanae Vitae (16) explains that the difference between the practice of contraception and Natural Family Planning lies in the fact that NFP cooperates with the human reproductive system as God designed it, whereas contraception attempts to overcome and subdue it:
The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple makes
Contraception legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of the marital act in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.
39
15. Contraception and the very poor family There is a very poor married couple in my urban parish who can just barely make ends meet from month to month although they both work, he as a part-time taxi driver and she doing laundry. I have been to their home, which is really nothing more than a rude shack with a dirt floor. They have no children and, in my opinion, will not be able to pro vide for a child for years, if ever. How can I advise them? The Catholic Church has always allowed the use of infertile periods to space children for authentically serious reasons. Pope Paul VI said in his great encyclical Humanae Vitae (10, 16) that:
40
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth ... If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
Some people who do not understand Catholic teachings give the impression that the Church wants couples to produce as many children as is physically possible, but this is not true. The Church asks married couples to always remain open to the gift of life, but never demands the impossible from them. The truthful answer to the question of what constitutes a truly serious impediment to having more (or any) children is rooted in honesty and a properly formed conscience. Some people who lack the virtues of fortitude and selfsacrifice interpret any and all reasons as serious.
Contraception
41
True followers of Christ can be more informed in their assessments of their own personal situations in light of the natural moral law and Church teaching, particularly with the guidance of a priest who fully understands the Churchs teachings on sexual morality.
Chapter 2
Abortion
16. Fatal birth defects and abortion A couple in my parish disclosed to me that they had prenatal testing and found that their unborn child is a boy with Trisomy 18. This means that he will die shortly after birth. Would it be allowable for the wife to have an abortion in this most extreme case, rather than bring a baby to birth who is only go ing to die hours later anyway, and cause his family much pain and suffering? Without question this is a tragic and extreme case. However, we must not let our emotions run away with us. As Catholics, we believe that the unborn child is a human being regardless of his or her physical or mental condition. And we also believe that having a handicap even a serious handicap does not make a human being any less human regardless of his or her physical or mental condition. This means that abortion for birth defects, or eugenics, can never be justified. When a couple finds out that their child will be handicapped, this naturally produces a sense of loss or
42
Abortion
43
grief initially. However, the family can move towards acceptance if they receive help from others who have walked this path, and if they are supported with prayer and material help. We must stand back for a moment and ask ourselves which is the most loving way to deal with this situation: To allow the child to die in the arms of his parents or at the hands of the abortionists merciless, razor-sharp surgical instruments? Our world celebrates perfection and beauty. We constantly see images of beautiful women and handsome men in magazines, in the movies, and on television. We are losing our ability to see the loveliness in the face of a handicapped child who may not meet our standards of beauty. To kill someone because he or she is less than perfect is to reject the battered and marred face of Christ as well. He was most beautiful when He suffered for us; parents are most beautiful when they suffer and sacrifice for the sake of their handicapped child. If the parents of an unborn child wanted him or her until they found out that the child was handicapped, they would be practicing pure and simple discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of physical or mental handicap is incompatible with Catholic teaching, because it consists of bias against a person because he or she is different from us. In the eyes of God, all of us are equal because of our very humanity.
44
To judge a person by his or her handicaps is to see that person as a material good, not as a person with intrinsic worth. Our Lord Jesus Christ embraced the poor, the handicapped, the deformed, the diseased. If we are to follow His example, we must do the same. From a practical point of view, this kind of eugenicist thinking sends a hideous message to other children, especially if they are handicapped. They will soon deduce that they would have been discarded (or still might be) if they did not measure up to their parents standards of perfection. Society in general is finding it easier and easier to dispose of the handicapped. Thirty years ago, we cared for those weaker than ourselves. Now, ninety percent of unborn Downs Syndrome children are aborted, and genetic testing is leading to more and more eugenic abortion for smaller and less important handicaps, such as deafness. In fact, more than a million babies worldwide are aborted each year because of the handicap of being female! 17. Rape, incest and abortion (17a) We recently had a terrible tragedy in our par ish. An 18-year-old girl was brutally beaten up and raped, and she became pregnant. Her family mem bers are heavily pressuring her to have an abortion, and they are telling me to stay out of their business.
Abortion
45
So far, the girl is resisting their pressure. How can I help her defend her babys life? (17b) A 15yearold girl in my parish told me that she is pregnant by her uncle, who is a notorious drunkard and has been molesting her for some time. May I counsel her to have an abortion to avoid caus ing the family further pain and embarrassment? There is no doubt that a woman or girl who has been raped or who has been the victim of incest has been terribly violated, and we should all show sympathy towards her. But let us be realistic for a moment. The relatives and friends of these two girls are going to claim that they are the people who are being realistic. They think that abortion will simply make the problem go away. However, we must look at the facts. Abortion does not unrape a woman or take away the trauma of incest; it merely heaps one atrocity on top of another. The problem here is not the baby, but a lack of love and support for the young woman or girl. If she has the abortion, her relatives will most likely consider the problem solved, but the victim will then be suffering from both the original crime and the killing of her preborn child. In fact, in many cases of incest, the molester uses abortion as the ideal cover-up for his heinous activi-
46
ties. Abortion clinics, whether they are legal or illegal, rarely ask questions because they are businesses in operation for one purpose and one purpose only to make as much money as possible. Once the girl who is the victim of incest has an abortion, she is victimized yet again. One way to approach this problem is to imagine thoroughly examining two newborn babies lying side by side one who was conceived within a loving marriage and one who was conceived as the result of a violent rape or repeated molestation by a family member. Which may we consider to be more human? If these two babies were laid side by side, could anyone identify the one who was conceived by rape or incest? Of course not! Then why select one baby for extinction based solely upon the circumstances of his or her conception? Virtually everyone would oppose the death penalty for a guilty rapist, no matter how violent he is, or for the sexual molester of children. Why, then, do some people advocate the death penalty (abortion) for his innocent child? The solution to this problem is to ensure that the rape or incest does not happen again. We must lock up the rapists and the molesters and must give the victim the physical, emotional and spiritual support she needs to live a normal life.
Abortion
47
See Chapter 3 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Health Exceptions for Abortion, for a more detailed theological and scientific explanation of rape, incest, eugenics and mothers health exceptions for abortion.
18. Young girls and secret abortions I overheard a young unmarried girl in my parish tell one of her friends that she is pregnant and has scheduled an abortion for a week from now. As a priest, what are my responsibilities in this case? The Catholic Church has taught throughout its history that the preborn child is a full member of the human family. This means that you should act as if the life of a two-year-old child is in immediate danger. As with any other situation where a life is hanging in the balance, this calls for a drop everything theology. Begin by contacting the girl herself and attempt to dissuade her from aborting her child. She will probably be in a panic situation and is having trouble making a wise decision. She sees a positive pregnancy test as a huge loss of control of both her life and her selfimage. She will make whatever choice she thinks will most quickly return her life to normal. Often, she sees carrying the baby to term as her least desirable option, because it will completely disrupt her plans for
48
her life. She might see adoption as unacceptable, because it means going through the entire pregnancy and then giving up the baby, which is also very disruptive. To a young girl in a panic situation, abortion is often perceived as the least bad solution to her immediate problems, since she mistakes it as a quick eraser of her pregnancy. You must help her see her options in their true light. Abortion is not just a quick surgical procedure it goes on and on forever, whereas life-giving options bring hope, personal growth and peace of mind. You can emphasize the humanity of the unborn child and the damage that abortion inevitably does, especially to young girls. Show her what material resources are available to help her, and that it is never necessary to abort with such help. Your parish should stand ready to help such girls and women with food, clothing, housing and counseling if necessary, and many times your local community will have a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) that can also help. If she does not respond, you should contact those close to her, in particular the father of the baby and the girls parents. If these people are not supportive of the girl, other women in the parish who have experience in crisis or other counseling might step in. The problem in most cases is simply a lack of support for a girl who chooses life. Most young girls who abort believe that they simply have no other choice.
Abortion
49
This is one instance where the law may assist you in your efforts. If the girl is young, some jurisdictions require the consent or knowledge of the girls parents or the father of her baby. If a woman or girl is determined to go ahead with the procedure, she at least has the right to be forewarned that safe abortion is anything but safe. The abortion industry attracts the most incompetent and unscrupulous doctors and clinic staff.1 Women die by the hundreds each year in nations with loose abortion laws, and most of these deaths are never reported. If abortion is illegal in your country, the danger is even greater to the life of the girl considering abortion. A direct appeal to her concern for her own life might be effective. It is important to remember that you are fighting for the life of a child of God who has as much right to live as anyone else, regardless of what the senseless laws of man dictate. You may be mocked by the press, scolded by the court system, and perhaps even vilified by some of your brother priests, but fighting for the lives and souls of the helpless is one of the highest callings a person especially a priest could ever have.
1. For useful evidence of this statement, see http://www.abortionviolence.org.
50
19. Unrepentant abortion and Holy Communion A woman in my parish told me that she had an abor tion, but that it was not a sin for her since her family situation was so difficult at the time. She approach es the Communion rail each Sunday. Should I give her Communion? This is a complex and difficult question for priests to deal with. A pastoral and caring attitude is absolutely essential in such cases, since many people have become habitual in their use of a malformed or uninformed conscience. To begin with, you need to instruct the woman that abortion is a mortal sin unless she was forced into it or did not know it was a mortal sin. This is not just your opinion, but the eternal and unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin regardless of personal or family circumstance. If she obstinately refuses your counsel and is determined to continue receiving Communion, she is willingly and consciously committing the terrible sin of sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament something you simply cannot permit. By her example, this woman is also leading others into an occasion of sin. If she has informed you that she is receiving Communion despite knowing that abortion is a mortal sin, then doubtlessly she has told others in the parish as well. She is therefore giving a gravely bad example by receiving the Blessed Sacrament in such a
Abortion
51
state. If you continue giving her Communion you will also be giving bad example, and people will treat the Sacrament with much less respect in your parish as a result. They will also begin to believe that abortion is not such a serious sin if there are no repercussions for practicing or promoting it. In order to be fair to this woman, you should warn her beforehand that receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is simply unacceptable. She may cause discord and she may denounce you, but be assured that your courageous example will strengthen the faith of many more people in the parish. The woman may leave your parish. She may even leave the Church and look for a more accommodating denomination, but these are her decisions, and she must bear the consequences. This woman is probably not aware that she has automatically excommunicated herself through the act of abortion and is therefore cut off from the body of Christ. Canon Law Number 1398 states in Latin and English: Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem, latae sententiae, incurrat. Those who successfully abort a living human fetus bring on themselves automatic excommunication.
52
Abortum procurat means anyone who works to kill a human fetus in any manner at all. This may be the boyfriend or husband who drives the woman to the abortion clinic, pays for the abortion in full or in part, or even advises that abortion may be an option in her case. Latae sententiae means that the person brings automatic excommunication upon herself by her act. No solemn pronouncement need be made by the Church or a Bishop or priest, and no one else need even know about the abortion. For automatic excommunication to take place, the woman must know that she is pregnant and must freely choose abortion. At the moment the womans child dies, she is cut off from all the Sacraments completely, and cannot return unless she sincerely repents and makes a good Confession. This sanction also applies to the abortionist, attending nurse or counselor, and anyone else who assists in the abortion. Effectu secuto means that the excommunication takes place only if the abortion is completed. As a priest, you may have the faculties to lift the excommunication (the granting of such faculty varies from diocese to diocese). You may do so in the confessional if you have the faculties. In the long run, fulfilling your duty as a teacher and as a shepherd of souls in a forthright and diligent way will lead to the salvation of many more souls than
Abortion
53
taking a permissive attitude towards such matters. Your brave example in defending the great goods of the Blessed Sacrament and human life will bear great fruit, both in your own life and in the lives of others. To allow sacrilege to continue unchallenged will inevitably lead to moral rot spreading in your parish. Every day it is allowed to exist, it will be more difficult to eradicate. Remember the wise words of Pope St. Felix III: Not to oppose error is to approve it; not to defend truth is to suppress it. 20. Should only women speak about abortion? After I mentioned abortion in a homily, one of my women parishioners surprised me by telling me that, since I am a man, I have no right to preach on abortion or pregnancy because I will never experi ence them. I must admit I was at a loss for words. How can I respond to a statement like this? A persons sex is irrelevant to truth. The validity and truth of an argument has nothing whatsoever to do with a persons sex, age, race, or any other variable. If a statement or argument is true, then it is true it matters not who is saying it! Some proabortion women use this slogan in an attempt to intimidate men into giving up their most basic free speech rights. But these people are being hypocrites, since they never object when a man speaks out
54
for abortion rights. After all, it was seven old men who imposed abortion on demand on the United States, and we did not hear feminists reject the ruling! Feminists often use the tired phrase, If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. In other words, since men cant get pregnant, they should not be allowed to speak about matters involving pregnancy. So let us take this grossly flawed logic a bit further: Only South African blacks should have been able to speak out about apartheid, because only they were adversely affected by it. Only Jews should be allowed to speak out about the Holocaust, Nazis, and antiSemitism, because only they are directly affected by it. Only men should be allowed to talk about major league baseball, football, and basketball, because only they are directly involved in playing the games. Only people on death row, and their immediate relatives, should speak about capital punishment, because only they are directly affected by the death penalty. Since only men fight in wars, only men should be allowed to hold an opinion on it (if the pro-abortionist asserts that women die in wars as well, tell them that half of those who die in abortions are little unborn women).
Abortion
55
Now you begin to see how silly and illogical the women only argument really is. If proabortionists wish to be consistent in applying this principle, we can say that only those persons of either sex who are fertile and not on any kind of birth control should be able to speak out either for or against abortion. In summary, laws of most countries guarantee that we can speak out publicly for or against anything despite the wishes of those who would dearly love to stamp out all viewpoints that they do not agree with. The very definition of oppression is an attempt to strip a group of people of their voice. This means that any proabortionist who is trying to divest men of their right to speak out against abortion is trying to oppress men. 21. Thousands of women dying of illegal abortions Abortion is illegal in my country. Lately, I have seen several articles and letters in our national newspa pers calling for the legalization of abortion because hundreds of women are dying every year at the hands of backalley quacks. Shouldnt we legalize abortion to save the lives of these women? This is without doubt the number one tactic proabortionists have used to legalize abortion in dozens of countries around the world. They always hugely exag-
56
gerate the numbers of women who are being killed and mutilated by illegal abortions and use always-fictitious stories told by always-anonymous women to play on the sympathies of the government and the people. If the pro-abortionists are so concerned about the health of women, why do they not simply call for enforcement of the existing laws and the arrest of the illegal abortionists? After all, everyone usually knows who they are, and police could easily locate them and take them out of action. The answer is this: The pro-abortionists do not call for the arrest of the abortionists who are allegedly butchering women because they do not care about womens lives; all they care about is the legalization of abortion and the vast income that it will bring. It is always all about the money. We must ask ourselves this question: If abortion is such a clandestine operation, how can the pro-abortionists possibly produce such a hard figure of dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of women dying from illegal abortions each year? In answer to this question, they always refer to unspecified hospital records. But when pro-lifers demand to see these hospital records, it is always impossible because of privacy concerns. This way, the pro-abortionists can lie with impunity. Laws should never be based on feelings only on facts. As lawyers say, hard cases make bad law. This is certainly the case in the West, where the numbers
Abortion
57
of abortions increased so hugely after legalization that most of Europe is dying out because of it. And women are still dying by the hundreds, because the same incompetent butchers who kill women before abortion is legalized simply continue their practices after it is legalized. Pro-abortionists always deliberately lie about the numbers of women dying of illegal abortions, because this is their most powerful weapon and because they have no regard for the truth. Pro-abortionists usually populate the Ministries of Health and hospital boards, and disseminate biased data for the purposes of influencing public opinion and government policy so dont trust so-called surveys of hospital data or government figures just because they come from a reputable source. The table below shows just a few examples of how pro-abortionists have lied about the number of women dying from illegal abortions around the world:
Country or Region India Brazil Mexico Africa Italy Germany Claimed Figure 600,000 400,000 140,000 74,000 20,000 15,000 Factor of Actual Figure Exaggeration 1,800 241 159 150 55 100 333 times 1,660 times 881 times 493 times 365 times 150 times
58
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook 10,000 2,000 1,000,000 40 12 2,640 250 times 167 times 379 times
United States Portugal World
See Chapter 7 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion, for a detailed study of this subject.
22. Ectopic pregnancy, abortion, and the double effect A devout woman in my parish is in a terrible situ ation. Her doctor told her that she has an ectopic pregnancy and that she will die unless she has an abortion. May I tell her that she can have the abor tion? It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans direct abortion to save the life of the mother. However and this is an extremely important point the mothers life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the preborn babys life. The most common health difficulties that may set a mothers life against that of her preborn childs are an ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention. In such cases, under the principle of the double ef-
Abortion
59
fect, attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. However, if the physicians decide that the mothers life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn babys life, the baby will of course die. The Church teaches that this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death. The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following five conditions are all met.1 The example shown below is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture and will usually cause the death of both the mother and the child. (1) The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the object of the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents a threat to the life of the woman. By contrast, the object of surgical or chemical abortion is simply to kill the preborn child (object is the end toward which an action tends, and does not
60
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
connote the intention(s) of the operator, as does the word objective). The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the mothers life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child). By contrast, in the case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abortion), the death of the child is wrongly considered to be the good effect. The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the baby; its death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast, the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child. There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the babys death. Proabortion groups often stretch this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as to justify all abortions under the principle of the double effect because, as they allege, all abortions threaten the life of the mother in some way. Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in (4) above, namely, that there is no other alternative available to solve the problem at hand. If
Abortion
61
there are alternatives other than the intervention that offer better possibilities to save both mother and preborn child, these of course must be used. In fact, this last condition is the one that most clearly distinguishes the indirect abortion case (the case under the double effect principle) from the therapeutic abortion case.
1. Rev. Edward J. Hayes, et al. Catholicism and Ethics [Norwood, Massachusetts: C.R. Publications], 1997, pages 54 to 57; Pope Pius XII, address to the Family Front Congress on November 27, 1951; Pope Pius XII, address to the Italian Union of Midwives of October 29, 1951 [Acta Apostilicae Sedis, 43(1951), page 855]; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, 14. See Chapter 9 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library, Catholic Church Teachings on Abortion, for a more detailed theological and scientific explanation of the double effect.
23. Pro-abortion politicians presenting themselves for Communion A local politician is a member of my parish. When ever a vote on abortion comes up, he invariably votes for abortion. He is also vocally prochoice and is a member of a local proabortion group. Lo cal prolifers have told me that I should deny him Holy Communion. Should I follow their advice?
62
This is a case of a person with a certain degree of public influence causing scandal to the faithful and possibly leading them astray. By receiving the Blessed Sacrament while voting solidly pro-abortion, he is, by his actions, telling the people in your parish that it is perfectly acceptable to be both Catholic and prochoice. Nothing could be further from the truth. A person who advocates the grave sin of abortion, and who excuses himself by telling you that he keeps his public and private lives separate, is fooling himself. When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he gave clear guidelines on how priests should handle this kind of situation:
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a persons formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Churchs teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. When these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, and the per-
Abortion son in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it. This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the persons subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the persons public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.1
63
A few dioceses have enacted policies that allow pro-abortion politicians to receive Communion in attempts to defuse such controversies. If this is the case, you can speak to the Chancellor about the conflict between this policy and that of the Vatican instruction shown above.
1. July 2004 Memorandum of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., entitled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.
24. Abortion and the role of guilt I know, from hearing Confessions in my parish for several years, that many women have had abortions. One person told me that I should never preach against abortion from the pulpit because that would psychologically wound and cause guilt in the wom en in my parish who have had abortions. What should I do?
64
If people do not hear that abortion is a grave evil from the pulpit, they will not hear the message at all. Most Catholics have never heard a homily about why abortion, contraception and sterilization are wrong, and so they remain ignorant and continue these practices. People need to hear about the evil of abortion, whether or not they have had one. Women who have had abortions may be suffering from intense unresolved feelings that are causing them problems in their relationships anger at their boyfriends, husbands or families; sorrow at the knowledge that they have killed their own child; or a belief that God could never forgive them for what they have done. Hearing the basic truth about abortion will help them begin the journey towards healing, and will also lead to repentance and the awakening of conscience in many who have been involved in the abortion industry either as a provider or as a customer. Certainly women who have had an abortion, and who are hearing for the first time that it is a mortal sin, will be shocked. But you can cushion the blow by emphasizing Gods infinite mercy, and His ardent desire to forgive His children and bless them abundantly through His Church. A balanced view of Gods justice and mercy can better help people understand their faults and repent. When it comes to sexual morality, there is always
Abortion
65
far more damage done by silence than by speaking out. In the absence of firm direction on divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality or any of the other issues dealing with sexual morality, people will think that it is perfectly fine to make up their own minds and will develop badly warped consciences. If someone says that you, as a priest, should not preach against abortion because it may cause some people guilt, ask them if you should cease preaching against adultery, murder and racism because it may cause the adulterers, murderers and racists in your congregation to feel guilt.
For those priests who would like to speak out on different aspects of sexual morality, here are two good resources: (1) The Priests for Life Web site at www.priestsforlife.org and (2) The pamphlet by Father Daniel McCaffrey and Father Matthew Habiger entitled Getting Beyond I Cant, available from One More Soul at www.OMSoul.com.
25. Free choice and abortion I heard a radio debate recently on the subject of abortion. The pro-choice person said that we must always have the freedom to choose. How can I reply to this argument? No freedom is absolute. All freedoms have lim-
66
its on them, and for good reason. Unlimited personal freedom eventually means spiritual slavery and a total disregard for the welfare of others. To put it simply, some choices are wrong. We all live under the guidance of tens of thousands of laws, orders, and local ordinances of every type governing or curtailing activities from capital murder to larceny, and each one of these restrictions limits our freedom of choice. When seen in this light, the slogan freedom of choice loses all of its allure and practical meaning. As a priest, you have a duty to try to dissuade people from sin. In fact, every Catholic bears this duty (Luke 17:3). We cannot simply stand by and observe a person tread the wide and easy road to Hell, and God will hold us accountable if we do not try our best to turn them from that fatal highway (Ezekiel 3:18-19). If we took the slogan freedom of choice at face value, the freedom to choose would supersede all other freedoms. Rapists could claim the freedom to choose rape. Child molesters could claim the freedom to choose to sexually assault children (and some actually do). Those who dislike homosexuals could claim the freedom to choose beating them up. Once again, some choices are wrong. If you use these examples, a proabortionist might point out that rape and assault involve a victim. This will give you a fine opportunity to stress that abortion
Abortion
67
also has a victim the most helpless and innocent victim of all and death by dismemberment or slow saltpoisoning is a fate far worse than being beaten up or even raped.
Detailed descriptions of these and other abortion procedures are contained in Chapter 1 of The Facts of Life, Surgical Abortion, on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
26. Its her body, isnt it? A pro-abortion woman told me that she could do anything she liked with her body. How can I reply to this argument? Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. We cannot do with them whatever we please. We cannot mutilate them, neglect them or destroy them (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). In the narrower case of abortion, the right to privacy and control over ones body does not in any way imply the right to destroy another persons body. And a woman has already procreated when she has conceived. The only question that remains is whether or not she will kill. It is true, of course, that the baby is inside the mothers body. But this no more makes it a part of her body than being inside a car makes one a part of
68
the car. Even other living creatures inside a womans body and entirely dependent upon it say tapeworms or other parasites are by no stretch of the imagination part of her body. They are physiologically entirely separate and distinct living creatures. Many people, when confronted with this logic, will argue that the baby is totally dependent upon the mother. They are implying that this allows the mother the right to dispose of her baby. This is a separate argument and should be treated as such. After all, when a baby is born, it is still completely and totally dependent upon others for its survival, just as much as it was before it was born. Does this give us the right to dispose of it? Finally, let us look at genetics and physiology. If the baby were part of the womans body, it should bear the same characteristics as the mother. After all, geneticists can positively identify the individual person from whom a cell came by examining its genetic structure. In order to highlight the fact that the baby is a separate being, consider these facts, which not even the most ignorant proabortionist can deny: All mothers are obviously female. About half of their children are male. How can a human being be both male and female? The mother and baby frequently have different blood types.
Abortion
69
The baby can be a different race from the mother. Every cell in the mothers body has a set of chromosomal characteristics that is entirely distinct from every cell in the babys body. When the fetus anchors itself to the uterine wall, there is a concerted attack by white blood cells to defeat it, and the fetus must defend itself. The mothers immune system recognizes it as nonself. Therefore, it is not part of her body. The baby can die without the mother dying. The mother can die without the baby dying (the baby can be rescued if he or she is viable.) The baby initiates a process that culminates in its leaving the mothers body. Challenge a proabortionist to name any other part of the body that does this. Sometimes a heartless proabortionist will insist that the fetus is a parasite. In such a case, they are acknowledging its separate nature, because parasites are never part of their hosts body. If the fetus is simultaneously a parasite and part of the mothers body, that would mean that the mother is a parasite as well!
For more information on the nature and development of the preborn child, see Chapter 12 of The Facts of Life, The Miracle of Fetal Development, on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 3
End of Life Issues

27. Nutrition, hydration and quality of life There is an 83yearold man in my parish who is bedridden, and who has been in a coma for several months. His relatives say that he has no quality of life. He receives his nutrition and hydration by tube, and the relatives want to remove the tube. What should I tell them? The term quality of life is completely useless when assessing a persons condition, because it is such a flexible term. It can literally mean anything, and is usually judged by people who have a vested interest in the disabled persons condition. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recognized the usual motivation for withdrawing nutrition and hydration when it said that
[N]utrition and hydration (whether orally administered or medically assisted) are sometimes withdrawn not because a patient is dying, but precisely because a patient is not dying (or not dying quickly) and someone believes
70
End of Life Issues it would be better if he or she did, generally because the patient is perceived as having an unacceptably low quality of life or as imposing burdens on others.1
71
The primary point to make here is that nutrition and hydration are basic human rights. We do not even execute mass murderers by denying them food and water because it is such an agonizing cause of death. The Catholic Church teaches that no person may be deprived of food and water as long as they can do him good. However, if their provision causes significant pain or discomfort in the very last stages of life when inevitable death is truly imminent, within mere hours then it may be permissible to withdraw them to avoid pain and suffering. If a stomach tube is causing a person pain, and the person is near death, nutrition would not be doing him any good, and it would be permissible to remove the stomach tube. In all cases of withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, three conditions must be met: (1) The withdrawal must not be intended to cause or hasten the death of the person; (2) The current form of feeding causes significant pain or is otherwise contraindicated; and (3) The person is so close to death that further nutrition will do him no good, and he will die natu-
72
rally before the resultant hunger and thirst cause significant pain.2
1. USCCB Committee for ProLife Activities. Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections, April 1992. 2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Euthanasia, May 5, 1980, Section IV, Due Proportion in the Use of Remedies. The full text of this document is on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
28. End of life care and painkillers A young man in our parish was recently diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer. It is a particularly virulent case, and he is now bedridden and in con stant severe pain. His physician wants to administer enough painkillers to render him unconscious for long periods of time. Is this permissible? People commonly ask three questions regarding the use of painkilling drugs near the end of life, as shown below. (a) May pain-killers be used if they unintentionally shorten the life of the person? In general, it is permissible to use painkillers that dull severe pain, even if they shorten the life of the patient. This is an application of the principle of the double effect, which states that it is sinful to shorten the life of a person deliberately, but if the primary pur-
End of Life Issues
73
pose of a drug is to relieve severe pain, and the shortening of life is merely an anticipated side effect, giving the drug is permissible. The intent of the treatment is the key to this principle. That the shortening of life must be insignificant in such a case is a particularly important point; this is not a loophole that allows the administration of lethal overdoses of painkillers to those who could otherwise live for years. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged (2279).
The Vaticans Declaration on Euthanasia further clarifies this point:

In answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics ... permitted by religion and moral-
74
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook ity to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)? The Pope [Pius XII] said: If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes. In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine.1
(b) May pain-killers be used if they induce semicon sciousness? The Declaration on Euthanasia also states that painkilling medications may be used even if they induce semiconsciousness:
Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semiconsciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctors advice.2
End of Life Issues
75
(c) May pain-killers be used if they induce total loss of consciousness? In certain cases it may be permissible and prudent to use pain-killers if they cause complete unconsciousness, if the person has had the opportunity to properly prepare his soul for his meeting with God. Once again, the Declaration on Euthanasia clarifies this point:
However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or she also has to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns: It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.3 1. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Euthanasia, May 5, 1980. Section III, The Meaning of Suffering for Christians and the Use of PainKillers. The complete text of this document is on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid.
76
29. Living wills and other advance directives A doctor has told an elderly widow in my parish that she should sign a Living Will. What is a Living Will, and are there any problems with it? The Living Will is an advance directive by which a person can assert in writing a desire not to be kept alive by lifesustaining medical equipment and procedures when his or her condition has been diagnosed as terminal, or under certain other conditions. Living Wills can be customtailored to meet any actual or perceived need or wish. Many people believe the Living Will is necessary in order to clarify a patients legitimate right to refuse extraordinary medical treatment. However, the Living Will is completely unnecessary because this is a right that all patients already possess in most countries. Living Wills are generally unnecessary under present law because there is nothing to prevent doctors from withholding or withdrawing lifesustaining medical treatment when all reasonable hope for recovery is gone. The primary danger of the Living Will is that a person usually signs it long before he knows if or when he will be incapacitated or what the circumstances of that incapacitation will be. This means that a person cannot specify the desired details of his treatment for future medical conditions. It would also be difficult
End of Life Issues
77
for a family doctor to make the decisions that would be in the patients best interests if such decisions conflict with the provisions of the Living Will. A preferable alternative to the Living Will is the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, or DPA, which simply transfers the responsibility for making medical decisions from the patient to another person when the patient becomes incompetent. A DPA allows someone who shares his values regarding the sanctity of life to become his attorney in fact. The designated person need not be an attorney or health care worker; he or she may be a spouse, relative, priest, rabbi or minister, or fellow churchgoer. A person who selects another to be the executor of a DPA should be sure that the executor shares his values regarding the sanctity of human life; that he has thoroughly discussed his wishes with the executor regarding medical care should he become incapacitated; and that the executor will be available and capable of making proper decisions under stress.

For more information on the Living Will, and on euthanasia in general, see Chapter 23 of The Facts of Life on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
78
30. Death with Dignity A parishioner of mine said that he would never want to live as a vegetable. He wants to die with dig nity. Why should we keep people alive if they are unresponsive or just dont want to live anymore? Shouldnt this be their choice? To begin with, nobody should be referred to as a vegetable. We derive our dignity from being made in the image and likeness of God. Whether we are old or young, born or unborn, healthy or in a coma, we do not lose this most fundamental quality. A death with dignity means different things to different people. All people desire a dignified death for themselves and for their loved ones. However, when a persons fear of death is exceeded by his fear of pain or loss of control, he is in a state of continuous mortal terror and may see death as a blessed release from his current situation. Such a person necessarily defines his degree of dignity by purely physical or emotional criteria. By contrast, the Catholic Church perceives a loss of spiritual dignity when a person loses his focus on God and instead desires only a release from an existence that he or others may find pointless and wasteful. True compassion demands that all of us love and support one another, regardless of our functional capacity or appearance, and prepare the dying for their
End of Life Issues
79
ultimate meeting with God. This is the true definition of living with dignity, even when in the last stages of dying. Of course, severe pain suffered for too long can destroy the strongest of people. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that it is not proper to expect heroic virtue from all people, and that painkillers may be used, even if they lead to semilucidity or quicker death in some cases (see Question 28 for elaboration on the licit use of painkillers). A certain degree of pain at the end of life allows us to follow Christ all the way to the Cross. In one way, it seems inconsistent for Christians to be willing to suffer various indignities and inconveniences in the name of Christ over a period of decades during their lives, and then shy away from complete participation in the ultimate suffering of Our Lord at the point of death. From a slippery slope point of view, euthanasia is much like other evils. We have seen in nations like Holland and the United States that it began with only the hardest of the hard cases, and now people who simply do not want to live are being euthanized, along with handicapped infants who have no say in whether they live or die. Our lives belong to God, and only He has the right to end them (Romans 14:7-8).1
1. See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2280): It is God Who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged
80
A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. Also see: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Euthanasia, May 5, 1980. The complete texts of the Catechism and the Declaration on Euthanasia are on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 4
Homosexuality
31. Blessing their union? Since long before I arrived at this parish, two male parishioners have been living together as a married couple. To tell the truth, they are a better model for matrimony than many of the manwoman mar riages in my parish, since they are totally committed to each other and very generously support the par ish. May I privately bless their union and encourage them in their faithfulness? God ordained the sacrament of Matrimony and, by implication, sexual relationships to be between a man and a woman only. The Church teaches that homosexual and polygamous relationships are intrinsically disordered, and for good reason. Marriage is meant to be unitive, procreative and exclusive. Some may point to the sorry state of marriage in the world today. In many Western nations, about one in two marriages occurring today will end in divorce. People say that homosexual marriage will not further degrade an institution that is in such poor condition.
81
82
But the dilution of the meaning of the Sacrament is what is most dangerous to it. Some have even said that marriage should be done away with completely, because it has lost its meaning. Homosexual marriage is a fraud, a hoax, a sham. After all, if two men can get married to each other, why not three men, or two men and two women, or any other combination? This point is already being argued by polygamists. Certainly marriage is in bad shape today. But the answer to this problem is not to throw up our hands in defeat and let it slide into ruin further, but to get back to emphasizing the proper instruction of engaged couples and support for couples who are sincerely trying to make their marriages work. Supporting two men living as a married couple, regardless of how altruistic they may appear, sends a disastrous message to all those defending marriage. It also further endangers the souls of the men living in such an arrangement. Finally, the homosexual lifestyle is absolutely deadly from a public health viewpoint. It has been said that God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but Nature never forgives. This is certainly true with homosexuals, whose rates of suicide, murder, domestic violence, drug and alcohol addiction, and sexually transmitted diseases are all much, much higher than for the rest of the population.
Homosexuality
83
In fact, on average, both male and female active homosexuals lose a full 20 to 25 years from their lifespans due to their practices and other factors.1 This means that, not only are unrepentant homosexuals in grave danger of losing their souls, but they live shorter and unhappier lives on earth as well.
1. Several major studies have shown that sexually active homosexuals lose many years from their life spans. The first of these, which examined tens of thousands of obituaries of homosexuals, found that they lose about twenty years from their lives (Paul Cameron. Gay Obituaries Closely Track Officially Reported Deaths from AIDS. Psychological Reports (2005; 96:693-697). The homosexual lobby attacked the author of this study ferociously and declared that he was discredited, but other studies bear out Camerons conclusions. One such study is Robert S. Hogg, et al. Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men. International Journal of Epidemeology (1997; 26:657-661). In 2007, Brian Clowes compiled 200 obituaries in the homosexual magazines New York Blade and Washington Blade and confirmed these results yet again. It is interesting to note that the rates of cancer, suicide and murder are also much higher among sexually active homosexuals than they are among the general population.
84
32. Sinfulness Since God made us the way we are, why does the Church consider a homosexual orientation to be sinful? To begin with, the Catholic Church has never taught that a homosexual orientation is sinful. The Church teaches that a homosexual orientation is disordered. The Church treats a homosexual inclination as a tendency towards a particular type of sin, just as a kleptomaniac might be tempted to steal. If a kleptomaniac felt a strong inclination to steal from a department store but resisted his temptations, he would not be guilty of sin, but would be worthy of praise for his resistance to sin. In the same manner, a person with same-sex attraction who does not give in to his or her urges is worthy of respect and admiration. We often hear from homosexual activists that they were born that way. They quote several studies in support of this view, although all of the studies are fatally flawed. Civil rights legislation favoring homosexuals is based upon the idea that they were born that way and cannot change. Homophiles often compare sexual orientation to left-handedness, and give it about as much moral weight. However, if we think about it for a minute, the question of whether or not people are born homosexual is actually completely irrelevant.
Homosexuality
85
After all, everyone is prone to sin. We are born with fallen natures, and suffer from the tendency to sin, or concupiscence. Some of us may tend towards excessive drink, some to violence, and some to theft. But this does not excuse alcoholism, assault and thievery. Yet some homosexuals think that, just because they feel same-sex urges, that they must not only be coddled but honored. It is entirely possible for anyone to resist the sinful tendencies we are born with. To believe otherwise is to reject the saving power of grace. Anyone who simply gives in to his urges and indulges them has given up the struggle against sin that we must all fight to our dying breaths.
Resources for those who wish to study the topic of homosexuality more closely are included on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library; (1) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, October 1, 1986; and (2) the book Homosexuality: Rhetoric and Reality, by Brian Clowes.
33. Civil Rights Why should we not give homosexuals civil rights? After all, they comprise at least ten percent of the population and are therefore a very large minority. Historically, minority status has been granted to
86
groups of people based upon their physical characteristics or belief systems. Homosexuals claim to be a minority based purely on their sexual behavior patterns, which is an illegitimate use of the status. One of the most persuasive arguments that homophiles have traditionally used to support their agenda is the assertion that fully ten percent of the population is gay. The original source of the ten percent statistic is Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the worlds best-known sexologist. His research has been thoroughly debunked, because Kinsey himself was a homosexual, and because he polled convicted sex offenders and male prostitutes in order to arrive at the ten percent number that homosexual activists have been using ever since. A summary of ten major studies of nearly 200,000 people carried out in five nations showed that 3.0 percent of adult men and 3.5 percent of adult women have ever had a homosexual experience at any time during their entire lives. Other major studies shows that about 1.5 percent of people consider themselves to be exclusively homosexual.1 Regardless of how large this self-professed minority is, the Church can never support special privileges for a group of people whose behavior is mortally sinful. Moreover, homosexuals already enjoy the civil rights that everyone else possesses in most societies. We have seen, in both North America and Europe, that
Homosexuality
87
their pursuit of additional rights leads to repression and ridicule of opposing viewpoints and even violent persecution of the Church.2
1. For more information on this topic, see: Brian Clowes. Homosexuality: Rhetoric and Reality, Chapter 2, Homosexual Orientation and the Ten Percent Myth. This book is on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library. 2. For documentation on many incidents of violence and intimidation committed by homosexuals against churches and individuals who oppose them, see: Brian Clowes. Homosexuality: Rhetoric and Reality, Chapter 4, Homosexual Tactics.
34. Credibility of the Church The recent scandals have greatly damaged the cred ibility of the Church in speaking about sexual mo rality. How can I speak about homosexuality in par ticular under these conditions? The authority of the Church to speak on matters of sexual morality comes from Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 28:19-20). Regardless of what sinful man may do, or what the public opinion polls may say, you as a priest of God have been invested by Our Lord Himself to teach, and nobody can take that authority away from you. A short discussion on the sex abuse crisis in the United States is very revealing indeed.
88
The John Jay study of the crisis defined two classes of sexual molesters. The first is pedophiles, who are people who engage in behaviors related to sexual contact with a prepubescent child. The John Jay study defined this as the molestation of children aged ten and younger. The second class of molesters are ephebophiles, defined as people who exhibit these same fantasies, urges or behaviors towards post-pubescent youths, those aged eleven and up. The National Review Board, which commissioned the John Jay study, defined ephebophilia as a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. The John Jay study analyzed the ages of children molested by priests and deacons and found that the crisis was caused not by priests, but by homosexuals: The United States government has found that, overall, only 14.4% (one of seven) children victimized by sexual abuse are boys. However, 85.3% (six of seven) of the victims of predatory priests were boys. An amazing 69.7% of all of the victims during the crisis were boys aged eleven to seventeen proving that the root of the problem is homosexual ephebophilia. So, in short, the problem was not one of priestly pedophilia, but of homosexual ephebophilia.
89
More than a dozen major studies performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers have revealed that homosexual males are from 50 to 200 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual males. Meanwhile, about four percent of priests in the United States were even accused of the sexual molestation of children.1
1. All of this information is documented in Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier. Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2005, pages 44 to 54. You can find this article on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 5

35. Living together before marriage A young couple in my parish is living together, and they want to be married in the Church. They in sist that have a right to what they call a trial mar riage, and that, since it will demonstrate whether or not they are compatible, it will actually lead to a healthier and more durable marriage. What can I say to them? More than half of all couples in North America and Europe cohabit before getting married. Those who participate in cohabitation often strongly believe that such practice before marriage will strengthen their relationship when they finally do get married. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is the case. The divorce rate among people in the United States who do not cohabit is a distressingly high 21 percent but the divorce rate among people who do cohabit before marriage is twice as high, at 39 percent.1 It seems that people who disregard the rules before marriage feel free to disregard them after marriage.
90
91
Any way you look at it, cohabitation is degrading to the whole concept of marriage and family: Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to cheat on their partners.2 Partly as a result of this, the rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among cohabiting couples is six times higher than among married couples.3 Cohabiting couples face much greater risks of substance abuse, psychiatric problems, poverty and child abuse than married couples.4 As always in such situations, the children suffer the most. The poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is five times greater than the rate among children in marriedcouple households.5 Marriage is a natural and original institution that predates any public authority. Matrimony is a declared commitment of husband and wife to each other for life and includes an intention to be fruitful and bear children. It is also a Sacrament that confers specific graces which greatly assist the spouses to overcome the obstacles they will undoubtedly encounter in the years ahead. It is, in all of its aspects, a solemn covenant that confers stability upon the relationship between husband and wife, and which promises a safe and secure environment for their children. All of these qualities are missing when couples co-
92
habit. In fact, many couples who are living together never get married at all in spite of their original intentions, and often have no children. Since the declared commitment is lacking, these relationships almost always break-up, and the woman and children (if any) are left to struggle on their own.
1. William J. Bennett. The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family, 2001. 2. J.C. Crouse. Cohabitation: Consequences for Mothers and Children. Presentation at the United Nations Conference for the Tenth Anniversary of the International Year of the Family, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 1114, 2004. 3. J.C. Crouse. Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century, 2000. 4. Patrick Schneider II. Cohabitation is Bad for Men, Worse for Women, and Horrible for Children. New Oxford Review, September 2007. 5. Bennett, op. cit. See also: (1) Pope John Paul II. Theology of the Body. This magnificent series of 129 general audiences given by Pope John Paul II from September 1979 to November 1984 covers all aspects of marriage, personhood, procreation, parenthood, purity, virginity and the damage caused by lust; (2) Pontifical Council for the Family. Marriage, Family and De Facto Unions, July 26, 2000; and (3) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2390-2391. All of these documents are contained on the Pro-Life CD Library.
93
36. Annulment for abused wife One of the men in my parish is a habitual drunkard. He cannot hold onto a job, has had several extra marital affairs, and beats his wife frequently. She wants an annulment. What exactly does the Church teach about annulments in such a case? The most important pastoral considerations in such a case are the safety of the wife and the preservation of the marriage itself. The pastor and the people should intervene in order to try to correct the behavior of the husband. Often, other married men in the parish can assist. If this course of action fails, it may be necessary to call on the aid of social service agencies that can assist the wife and any children. The husbands behavior is not only repugnant in the eyes of the Church, but to society as well. The answer to this terrible situation is not to end the marriage, but to try to heal the relationship between the husband and the wife. When dealing with such a situation, it is important to remember that, in granting an anullment, the Church does not nullify the marriage with a Declaration of Nullity; it recognizes that the marriage was null to begin with. In general if, on the wedding day, the legitimate form was followed, then valid consent was given. If this is the case, an annulment cannot be granted.
94
However, a number of factors, if proven, might support the case for an annulment. If other interventions fail and the husbands abusive behavior continues, the pastor should assist the wife in contacting the marriage Tribunal of her diocese or speaking to a canon lawyer. This is necessary, because the Churchs law on marriage, and the work of the Tribunals, is very complicated and requires experienced guidance in order to understand it. It is essential to note that all annulments are based upon some defect of consent by one or both of the parties. If the conditions necessary to contract a marriage were not present at the moment the man and the woman expressed their consent, it may be possible to obtain an annulment. If the husbands abusive behavior began at some time after the wedding, it could not in itself be used as grounds for an annulment. However, judgment about the essential elements of consent in a marriage which is gravely impaired by alcoholism might constitute lack of the necessary discretion of judgment and might support an annulment. The marriage will be upheld until this lack of judgment can be proven to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. Father Peter Stravinskas summarizes the different grounds for a declaration of nullity:
A marriage can be declared invalid for a variety of reasons: lack of canonical form if one party is Catholic and
The Sacrament of Matrimony thus required to be married in the presence of a priest, deacon or bishop; the existence of an undispensed impediment; the presence of an intention contrary to marriage at the time of the wedding; the presence of [psychic] factors that rendered one or both parties incapable of knowing what they were doing or of assuming the fundamental responsibilities of marriage.1
95
There are cases when the Church has dissolved true (valid) marriages in favor of the Faith. These are applied under the Petrine Privilege and the Pauline Privilege. These hold that non-consummated and non-Sacramental marriages may be dissolved by the Pope.2
1. Rev. Peter Stravinskas. Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia [Our Sunday Visitor, 1994]. 2. Code of Canon Law, 1983, 1142-1147. * See also: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The Social Agenda: A Collection of Magisterial Texts. Article Three, The Family, 84-92. The full text of this document is on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 6

37. Infertile couples There is an infertile married couple in my parish. They have been trying to have children for several years now, with no success. Are there any resources I might refer them to in order to help them? This is a situation that must be handled with the utmost delicacy and compassion. While millions of women deliberately kill their unborn children through abortion, infertile couples echo Rachels cry: Give me children or I will die! (Genesis 30:1). Nobody who has not experienced it can understand the depths of the couples longing to see a part of each other reflected in a child they yearn to give life to, a future citizen of this world and of Heaven; and their thirst to participate in the great adventure and great challenge of raising a child. Truly, an infertile couple feels as if their life is not complete, as they experience the monthly hope and disappointment that seems to become more and more inevitable. Infertility is usually diagnosed if a couple cannot
96
97
conceive over a period of one year or suffers three or more consecutive miscarriages. An inability to conceive might be caused by one or more of the following: failure of the wife to ovulate, low sperm count, endometriosis, a blocked Fallopian tube, the impacts of previous abortions or prolonged use of certain birth control methods, bad nutrition or sleeping habits, or environmental factors. One might begin by asking if the couple is using a method of Natural Family Planning (NFP) that includes charting the wifes cycles, such as the symptothermal method or the Creighton method. If they are not using one of these methods, they might want to learn how, because NFP can be used to achieve as well as avoid pregnancy. The Couple to Couple League (www.ccli.org) has thousands of teaching couples around the world who can do two-on-two instruction to help them learn the sympto-thermal method. If this is not possible, another resource is Dr. Thomas Hilgers NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology), which uses fertility care, not fertility control, as its primary approach. Its basic concept is to carefully monitor, chart and use various hormonal events during the menstrual cycle in order to provide information that the woman and qualified physicians can use to identify problems that might be interfering with the wifes fertility.1
98
1. See the NaProTechnology Web site at www.naprotechnology. com for more information on this method. For insight into the suffering experienced by infertile couples, listen to the audio CD by Marie Meaney, Ph.D., Embracing the Cross of Infertility, available from Human Life International.
38. In-vitro fertilization An infertile married couple in my parish is con cerned that they might be reaching the end of their childbearing years, and they have looked into invi tro fertilization. What should I tell them about this procedure? There are more than one hundred varieties of what are called assisted reproductive technologies, or ARTs. These range from simple hyperstimulation of a womans ovaries to produce many eggs all the way to complex fertilization processes. The Catholic Church always opposes substituting a technological act for the marriage act as a source of procreation, but does not oppose assisting the act with technology as long as the conditions listed below are met. Many of the assisted reproductive procedures now being used require masturbation, which the Church teaches is a grave sin. Often, excess embryos are either harvested and frozen (most of which are later discarded), or killed through selective reduction
99
(abortion) if the doctor wants to increase the odds of full-term birth by reducing the number of babies to one or two. In-vitro fertilization (IVF), which is the most commonly used ART, has several fundamental moral problems. IVF isolates both the fathers and the mothers gametes from their bodies via masturbation and laparoscopy respectively. These gametes are mixed in a Petri dish and, if fertilization takes place, the embryo is monitored for proper growth. Any defective embryos are destroyed, along with any deemed to be excess to the requirements of the procedure. At about three or four days, the doctor inserts the embryos into the womans uterus with a catheter or tube. The success rate of IVF is only about 25 percent, so many couples undergo multiple procedures. IVF and similar ARTs violate the principles of Donum Vitae, which states that an assisted reproductive procedure must meet these five specific criteria in order to preserve the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act: (1) All assisted reproductive procedures should be performed upon married couples only (Donum Vitae, II, A, 2). (2) The wife must contribute the egg and the husband must contribute the sperm. No other per-
100
son must be involved, as this constitutes technological adultery (II, A, 2). (3) Masturbation must not be required (II, B, 6, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2352). Note that sperm collection can licitly be accomplished through home collection, which consists of the use of a perforated condom during natural intercourse. (4) Fertilization must take place inside the womans body (II, B, 4, c). (5) Spare embryos must not be discarded, frozen, or experimented upon, and procedures such as selective abortion (pregnancy reduction) must not be used (I, 5). There are a number of assisted reproductive technologies that are in use today that not only meet the above criteria, but they are more frequently successful than IVF. These include gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) and low tube ovum transfer (LTOT).
For more information on assisted reproductive technologies, see (1) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Donum Vitae (1987), Part II, Interventions Upon Human Procreation, available at www.cin.org/vatcong/donumvit.html; (2) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae (2008), Second Part, New Problems Concerning Procreation, available at www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/;
101
(3) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2373-2379, The Gift of a Child; and (4)The Facts of Life, Chapter 15, Assisted Reproduction, which is on Human Life Internationals ProLife CD Library.
39. Surrogate motherhood I see a lot in the newspapers lately about surrogate motherhood. One infertile couple in another par ish has said that they have a right to a child and are going to pay another woman to carry their baby. Should these people have a child by this method? Surrogate motherhood usually involves the artificial insemination of a woman with a husbands sperm if his wife is infertile or does not want to carry her own pregnancy to term. In some cases, the surrogate is implanted with the couples embryo after IVF. The surrogate usually receives payment for carrying the child, and relinquishes him to the contracting couple immediately after birth. Surrogate motherhood is a kind of high-tech adultery. In street prostitution, the woman sells or rents her body or body parts, the relationship to the customer is entirely impersonal, she must do what she is told, her value or usefulness comes solely from her function, she is to leave when she is told, and if there is a pimp, he gets a share of the money. The only differences between prostitution and sur-
102
Pro-Life Handbook
rogacy are that intercourse is assisted by technology, the woman intends to become pregnant, and the attending physician acts as a kind of high-tech pimp. The surrogate is selected on the basis of desirable qualities appearance, health, and fertility; is paid to provide her body for a period of time, and then disappears from the scene. Interestingly, most contracts between the surrogate and the husband and wife insist the surrogate abort the child if genetic tests show abnormalities unacceptable to the husband and wife.1 Proponents of surrogate motherhood treat the baby in question as mere property under contract. In response to a question about whether surrogate motherhood is morally licit, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replied in its document Donum Vitae,
No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject artificial fertilization: For it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person. Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.2
103
Some married couples simply cannot accept the heavy cross of infertility and desperately seek out any intervention that might provide them with a child. Sometimes they speak of a right to a child, as if their mere desire entitles them to Gods supreme gift. But such an attitude, understandable as it may be, reduces the child to a mere object of acquisition, as Donum Vitae explains:
[M]arriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the childs dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, the supreme gift and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents.3
1. Donald DeMarco. In My Mothers Womb: The Catholic Churchs Defense of Natural Life [Manassas, Virginia: Trinity Communications], 1987, page 181. 2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Donum Vitae (1987), 3. The full text of Donum Vitae is on Human Life Internationals Pro-Life CD Library. 3. Donum Vitae, 8.

A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Pro-Life Handbook

By Brian Clowes, Ph.D.

Human Life International

Nihil obstat: Imprimatur:

End of Life Issues

The Sacrament of Matrimony

Assisted Reproductive Technologies

*This statement was given by Fr. Marx in the summer of 2009.