Many years ago in his novel, The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne wove deftly into his morality tale the letter “A” sewn to Hester Prynne’s clothing. Of course, the emblem enabled Hawthorne to develop a story that probed a number of important norms about our human existence. I would like to borrow his use of the letter “A” in its reddish fashion—perhaps recalling the color of blood—to probe another question which has once again surfaced frequently in the news regarding the position of various influential people who hold high public office. But here the red letter “A” does not refer to concupiscence but to abortion. Since the question of what does the Church teach has recently surfaced once again by prominent public officials who claim allegiance to the Catholic Church and her teachings.
But, what are those teachings? Perhaps this brief anthology may help all of us who ask questions about the views expressed by prominent persons about the Church’s teachings:
We might begin with that extraordinary fragment of the Didache from the first century that is pregnant, if you will, with several important teachings: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant… Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is a deadly snare…
Tertullian affirmed the essential principle in the early second century: To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one.
The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb.
The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived.
Moving forward in time, we might consider the 1679 Decree of the Holy Office (the predecessor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) condemning a number of positions including the following: it is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the foetus, lest the girl found pregnant be killed or defamed; it seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion.
In 1974, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another’s life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute—even if it is still in the embryonic stage—to choose in the child’s name, life or death.
For those who are attracted to both the spirit and the texts of the Second Vatican Council, we have in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World this: Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator… For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.
And this from Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae in 1995: It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”. But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God’s law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.
These are but a few points made over the millennia of the Church’s teachings on the question of abortion. Those who claim to know this tradition may wish to consult these sources and the many others that exist and are readily accessible. But regardless of the source or the period in which it was promulgated, the teachings remains the same in spite of what some influential voices may suggest to the contrary.
RJA sj
I am grateful to Rob for bringing attention to the work of Professor Luban regarding human dignity. The subject of human dignity and what it is has a rich consideration in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. An examination of the many treatments in the Compendium reveals that there are specific contextual considerations as well as more general understandings. In spite of the fact that this forum is the Mirror of Justice, I cannot do justice to the vast treatment the Compendium offers in this posting. However, one of the appealing explanations of human dignity is that offered by Pope John Paul II in this encyclical letter Centesimus Annus where he said there exists something "which is due to man because he is man." Human dignity is not a property that can be bargained for or given away or forcibly removed. It is innate in the existence of each human who bears the divine image of God. I think Rob has come across an important topic vital to our common enterprise that can engaged us for a long time to come.
RJA sj
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
I sincerely thank Michael P. for posting Dr. John Marshall’s letter to The Tablet regarding his experience as a member of the Papal Commission on Birth Control. I did not know Jesuit Fr. Stanislas de Lestapis to whom Dr. Marshall refers. But I did know Jesuit Fr. John Ford, who like Fr. De Lestapis, was involved with the drafting of the “minority report” which became a harbinger of the encyclical Humanae Vitae upon which several of us have recently commented.
A quarter century ago when I was a Jesuit novice assigned to work in the New England Province Infirmary, I got to meet Fr. Ford who was then living in the infirmary during his last years in this life. One of my duties was to accompany him for his “daily” walks when his health permitted. He was a moral theologian who studied civil law in his later years; I was a civil law lawyer who had a great interest in moral theology and the social doctrine of the Church. We had some good conversations about matters of mutual interest. I learned much from him and his views on the Papal Commission’s work. I came across a recent publication on the Pro-Life Philippines website [HERE] that reminded me of some of Fr. Ford’s reflections. So, with thanks to Fr. Dick Cremins, S.J., I offer the thoughts of Fr. de Lestapis as reported by Fr. Cremins:
by Fr. Dick Cremins, S.J.
Fr. Stanislas de Lestapis, a French Jesuit, died in 1999 at the age of 94. He had been a member of the Papal Commission on Birth Control and was one of the signatories of its minority report. He had published a book, Birth Control, of which the third edition appeared in 1962, before Humanae Vitae (1968).
|
In chapter 7, “The Contraceptive Civilization”, he made the following bold prophecies:
• “We do not hesitate to say that the acceptance of contraception will produce profound changes in our civilization, these changes are already taking place in countries that have officially endorsed contraception for one or two generations.”
• “Voluntary numerous families will progressively disappear, and the large family will tend to appear as a monstrosity.”
• “Populations and families which have deliberately become less creative will experience spiritual ageing and premature sclerosis.”
• “The idea and the ideal of family happiness will be downgraded in terms of a so-called right to happiness and of what people think are the ‘techniques’ of achieving it.”
• Morality among the young will deteriorate. The unmarried will be more licentious. The sexuality of women will lose its connection with marriage.”
• “There will be a grave change in the bond of love, due to the reversal of sexual function. It will remain fixed at an ‘adolescent’ stage. Society as a whole will slip into this ‘transitory’ stage.”
• “The maternal instinct will become sterile, due to the repression of the desire for children which is innate in women. There will be a silent hostility toward life and its first manifestations: pregnancy, childbirth and even sometimes towards dolls and babies.”
• “A new concept of sex, now essentially defined as ‘the capacity for erotic play for the sake of the couple,’ all reference to procreation now being only accidental.”
• “A growing tolerance of homosexual behavior, as erotic play that succeeds in expressing personal intimacy between friends or lovers.”
• “Finally, contraception will raise hopes which it cannot fulfill, and will give rise to frustrations and deep dissatisfactions, which will contribute to:
- The crisis of divorce and instability of modern marriages.
- The deterioration of mental health, and lack of sexual desire in women.
- The abdication of parents confronted by their task as educators.
- The ennui secreted by a civilization that is entirely centered on a comfortable way of life and sexual satisfaction.”
• “We may be accused of drawing a rather somber picture. No one will reproach us for not being frank. It only remains to justify these predictions.”
Fr. Lestapis goes on for twenty pages to justify separately each of his predictions, some very clearly, others less so, given the intangible nature of his subject.
However, a simple observation of our contemporary world will tell us that many, if not all of them, have come to pass. Is this just coincidence or is it because “the acceptance of contraception” actually has “produced profound changes in our civilization”?
If that is so, we can hardly treat the assertion of Humanae Vitae that “every use of marriage should be open to the transmission of life” as an open question.
|
RJA sj
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I begin by thanking Tom and Susan for their contributions regarding the AALS annual meeting and the desire of certain groups of law teachers to boycott the early-New Year conference because the owner of the hotel, Mr. Manchester—who, by the way is a practicing Catholic according to news sources—contributed to the political campaign geared for the fall electoral season to address the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in In Re Marriage Cases. It seems that Mr. Manchester disagrees with the majority opinion in that case, and he, along with other citizens of California, are using the means of democracy to express their disagreement.
According to the article about this matter appearing in the National Law Journal to which Tom kindly gave us the link, Mr. Manchester, the hotel owner, employs men and women who, in some fashion, identify themselves as homosexual. So, it appears that there is no employment or other discrimination prohibited by the law such that may offer protections that address this inclination.
But the boycott is focused on something else that the law also addresses, and that is Mr. Manchester’s Constitutional, and I would say God-given, right to participate in the political process. The problem with that, according to the law faculty who have expressed their decision to boycott his hotel, and perhaps the conference, is based on Mr. Manchester’s political contribution to a side in a referendum endorsed by the California Supreme Court. In short, these law faculty are challenging his right to exercise his political voice.
This is a tragedy, but it is also a violation of the law. How ironic that those who teach law would object to a person’s right to exercise his political voice in a democratic exercise. This is not the sort of thing one would expect in a democracy, but it may be the sort of thing to which one could expect in a totalitarian state.
Many years ago, in the 1930s, Christopher Dawson, the first holder of the Charles Chauncey Stillman Chair of Roman Catholic Theological Studies at Harvard University, had these words to say about the totalitarian mind in the academy and in society:
The totalitarian state—and perhaps the modern state in general—is not satisfied with passive obedience; it demands full co-operation from the cradle to the grave… [I]f Christians cannot assert their right to exist in the sphere of higher education, they will eventually be pushed not only out of modern culture but out of physical existence. That is already the issue in Communist countries, and it will also become the issue in England (Mr. Dawson’s country of birth) and America if we do not use our opportunities while we still have them.
I find Mr. Dawson’s counsel wise and timely. I hope that it benefits those who may be attending or may be considering attending the AALS conference early next year. If you join the boycott, you have certainly expressed your political decision. In that case, let Mr. Manchester and those who agree with him be able to exercise, without intimidation or any other pressure, their political decision, too. That is what democracy is about. But when it no longer is, then democracy has mutated into the totalitarian regime to which it is supposed to stand in clear counterpoint—and this would make our national motto, e pluribus unum, rather ironic indeed.
RJA sj
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Today’s Boston Globe has as its lead editorial a brief exhortation, Legislators who stepped up [HERE], commending the Massachusetts legislators who voted this past week to repeal the 1913 statute that has barred out-of-state homosexual couples from marrying in Massachusetts and then returning to their home state jurisdiction in the hope of having their Massachusetts same-sex marriage recognized in a place that does not permit this. The Globe heaped praise on the legislators who voted “yes” in favor of the repeal. Governor Deval Patrick quickly signed the legislative repeal noting that with the repeal, “All people come before their governments as equals.” I hasten to add some agreement and some disagreement with this position: in some things yes, they are equal, but in other matters no—especially when reason, common sense, and irrefutable facts demonstrate that “equality” is impossible. Michael Jordan and I both love basketball, but I doubt that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will deem the two of us “equal” when it comes to our respective claims concerning the ability to play the game.
The Globe editorial took passing notice of opposition to the repeal from “social conservatives”. I wonder if the paper’s editorial board members who authored this congratulatory opinion would consider the legislators who voted “no,” that is, against the repeal, to be “social conservatives.” If a web log developing Catholic Legal Theory is a place to consider what is it that Catholic legislators should do and not do in their official capacities (something that members of MOJ have addressed from time to time), I would offer an opinion that the legislators voting “no” were the members of the General Court (the legislature) who, in fact, stepped up. It is clear that many of the legislators who voted “yes” consider themselves Catholic. But it was those Catholics, and other legislators who are not Catholic, who voted “no” who understand well the wise counsel of Pope John Paul II when he stated that “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” [Evangelium Vitae, N. 70]
In my opinion, the “no” votes belong in the circle of those who upheld the values crucial to democracy. I fear that those who cast “yes” votes have imperiled the values of “democracy” insofar as it exists in Massachusetts and will lead us further along a road to the diminishment of values crucial not only to democracy but to the society that it should preserve and protect.
RJA sj
