Evidence for Church teaching on Principle of Double Effect (re. Abortions)

  • Thread starter Thread starter NPC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NPC

Guest
I’m looking for help in finding any references in Church teachings/documents regarding the principle of double effect, specifically with regard to abortion, but it has to be pre the current Catechism (at least).

You see I was having a discussion about abortion and of course I was arguing that it is never permissable. However, my “opponents” insisted that when they were growing up (1960’s Ireland) the common teaching was that if there was to be a choice between saving the life of the mother or the life of the child, the life of the child was to take precedence. They also referred to a case which they knew of personally where a man who was a devout Catholic was agonising over the fate of his wife because he was led to believe that the life of the unborn child would have to be protected at all costs, even if it meant the death of his wife. The thing is, I don’t doubt that there probably were some priests going around with these kinds of ideas - just as there are many today who don’t give the official teaching of the Church.

I insisted that the teaching of the Church is that if the mother’s life is in danger, measures should be taken to save her life. Doctors should endeavour to save the life of the child too, but should the child die as a result of treating the mother, i.e. as long as the death of the child was not the desired outcome, it would be morally permissable to treat her - the principle of double effect. They insisted that if that’s the case now, it certainly wasn’t up to the 1980’s, so the Church must have altered its teaching on the matter.

So, I’d be most grateful if anyone could provide any evidence/links to counter their argument. The current Catechism is not sufficient for this argument! But the further back in time you guys can provide solid evidence for the Church’s current position, the better!

Many Thanks.
 
I have been told that in the case of a tubal pregnancy, it is acceptable to remove the tube.

In this case, one is removing a diseased organ. That is the main purpose.

That the unborn baby dies is an accident of the process, NOT its main purpose.
 
bpbasilphx said:
I have been told that in the case of a tubal pregnancy, it is acceptable to remove the tube.

In this case, one is removing a diseased organ. That is the main purpose.

That the unborn baby dies is an accident of the process, NOT its main purpose.
Click to expand...
This is true - and this was the form that my argument took, which is also the position of the Church. However, the people with whom I was discussing the topic maintained that when they were growing up, and right up to the 1980’s (at least) the “teaching”, in Ireland at least, was that if there was a choice between the child and the mother, one had to choose the child. I said that it’s not as simple as making a choice between the two, and I assured them that whoever was teaching them Catechism was not giving the authentic teaching of the Church. They, however, maintain that the Church has changed its teaching in recent years - i.e. that the principle of double-effect is the principle that one should go with has only come into our Catechisms recently.

1ke - thanks for the article - lots of info there. Still looking for more though, so if anyone can point me to more official “Vatican” documents (pre-Vatcian II, I suppose), I’d be most grateful.
 
NPC said:
I’m looking for help in finding any references in Church teachings/documents regarding the principle of double effect, specifically with regard to abortion, but it has to be pre the current Catechism (at least).

You see I was having a discussion about abortion and of course I was arguing that it is never permissable. However, my “opponents” insisted that when they were growing up (1960’s Ireland) the common teaching was that if there was to be a choice between saving the life of the mother or the life of the child, the life of the child was to take precedence. They also referred to a case which they knew of personally where a man who was a devout Catholic was agonising over the fate of his wife because he was led to believe that the life of the unborn child would have to be protected at all costs, even if it meant the death of his wife. The thing is, I don’t doubt that there probably were some priests going around with these kinds of ideas - just as there are many today who don’t give the official teaching of the Church.

I insisted that the teaching of the Church is that if the mother’s life is in danger, measures should be taken to save her life. Doctors should endeavour to save the life of the child too, but should the child die as a result of treating the mother, i.e. as long as the death of the child was not the desired outcome, it would be morally permissable to treat her - the principle of double effect. They insisted that if that’s the case now, it certainly wasn’t up to the 1980’s, so the Church must have altered its teaching on the matter.

So, I’d be most grateful if anyone could provide any evidence/links to counter their argument. The current Catechism is not sufficient for this argument! But the further back in time you guys can provide solid evidence for the Church’s current position, the better!

Many Thanks.
Click to expand...
I know I’ve posted about this before but since this has come up, I will again. I was in the exact situation you speak of and it wasn’t a tubal pregnancy. I was bleeding out - of course had the pregnancy been further along we would have tried to save the pregnancy but part of the pregnancy was causing a tear so the fetus had to be removed to save my life. I’ve had people on here tell me it wasn’t really abortion (my doctor does say that’s what it was), and I’ve had people say “how can you live with yourself” - My family just saw no reason for two to dies instead of only one. I’ve also gotten told “God might have given you a miracle and you both might have lived but you and your family chose to kill the baby” (not quite 6 months old) It would have been great to have a miracle but my husband and doctor didn’t want to risk my life for the possibility of a “miracle”. It was sad but I’m glad I"m still alive. If you want to ask this question, I’d seriously go ask Fr. Serpa - I bet he has an idea on this one and yes that article is interesting.
God Bless
Rye
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top