Humanae Vitae Revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrgiancola
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jrgiancola

Guest
I wonder how many pro-lifers have actually read Humanae Vitae. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are quite an eye-opener.
  1. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that 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.
  2. The Church, on the contrary, does NOT at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.
In other words, abortion is not illicit if it is truly a necessity to cure a mother’s illness, so long as it is not done merely as a mean of birth control.
 
jrgiancola said:
In other words, abortion is not illicit if it is truly a necessity to cure a mother’s illness, so long as it is not done merely as a mean of birth control.
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken, but I want to clarify the language you use.

It causes confusion to describe that as an abortion. Abortion is willful towards the destruction of the baby.

But e.g., when a hysterectomy is the only means to save a woman’s life, doing so is licit, even if she is with child, if the obvious consequences are unintended. To call that an abortion is to be dangerously unclear. I do not know if that is a plausible scenario but rather am just using it as an illustration

That surgery was for the life of the mother. An abortion is for the death of the child. That is why saying abortion is OK to save the life of the mother is a non sequitor. Abortion is never OK. Saving the life of the mother is OK so long as that is the only motivation.
 
I strongly disagree with your summation (“In other words…”). Directly killing a child is never licit, even if perceived as a necessity to cure a mother’s illness.

As Manygift says, you must be careful with the language you have used as you seem to imply otherwise, and have read something into those 2 paragraphs that is not there.
 
jrgiancola said:
I wonder how many pro-lifers have actually read Humanae Vitae. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are quite an eye-opener.
  1. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that 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.
  2. The Church, on the contrary, does NOT at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.
In other words, abortion is not illicit if it is truly a necessity to cure a mother’s illness, so long as it is not done merely as a mean of birth control.
Click to expand...
That’s the beginning of the sentance but it is incomplete. The full teaching is:

In other words, abortion is not always illicit if it is truly a necessity to cure a mother’s illness, so long as it is not done merely as a mean of birth control AND so long as the abortion is the unintended consequence of the theraputic treatment and not the directly intended end.

Paragraphs 14 and 15 must be seen together - not “either - or”.
 
In June of this year the USCCB Committee supported Bishop Olmsted in a statement defining, by two scenarios, the difference between direct and indirect abortion:
“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion …to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed.”
“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus."
Click to expand...
In the first, the child must be killed to achieve the desired result. In the second, the child dies as a result of the treatment of a diseased organ.
 
It seems to me that Pope Paul VI was aware of something that many of you are not aware of: the mother also has a right to life. The right to life does not end when we are expelled from the womb. I would also add that I do not accept, nor do I believe Pope Paul accepted, the so called “partial birth abortion.” But this is not actually abortion. It is infanticide and should not even be called abortion. Killing a fully grown fetus is infanticide. Still, I believe it is very important to remember that the mother also has a right to life, and it should not be the government telling her what she must do when presented with a situation where it comes down to the life of the mother versus the life of the unborn (not fully developed) child. That decision is for the mother to make, not the government, not the church and certainly not anti-abortion groups. Choosing whether or not I will live or die, assuming I have that choice, is my decision alone to be made between me and God; it’s not anyone else’s choice.
 
jrgiancola said:
It seems to me that Pope Paul VI was aware of something that many of you are not aware of: the mother also has a right to life. The right to life does not end when we are expelled from the womb. I would also add that I do not accept, nor do I believe Pope Paul accepted, the so called “partial birth abortion.” But this is not actually abortion. It is infanticide and should not even be called abortion. Killing a fully grown fetus is infanticide. Still, I believe it is very important to remember that the mother also has a right to life, and it should not be the government telling her what she must do when presented with a situation where it comes down to the life of the mother versus the life of the unborn (not fully developed) child. That decision is for the mother to make, not the government, not the church and certainly not anti-abortion groups. Choosing whether or not I will live or die, assuming I have that choice, is my decision alone to be made between me and God; it’s not anyone else’s choice.
Click to expand...
It should be the mother’s decision alone? Ok, fine, but then she shouldn’t expect the government to have to comply with that decision does she?

oh wait…you need the help of the government and doctors in order to have an abortion? Well then, I guess the decision isn’t the mother’s alone after all:rolleyes:.
 
jrgiancola said:
In other words, abortion is not illicit if it is truly a necessity to cure a mother’s illness, so long as it is not done merely as a mean of birth control.
Click to expand...
You do not understand what you are reading, and you certainly don’t understand what you are saying.

Abortion is intrinsically evil. Abortion is always immoral.

Theraputic treatments for diseases or conditions are not abortions. There is no such thing as an abortion for the purpose of treating a mother’s illness. Humanae Vitae is referring to legitimate medical treatments-- such as chemotherapy, hysterectomy, etc-- that indirectly result in the death of the child.

You seem so proud to have discovered this, but it is no discovery at all. The encyclical does not say what you are trying to make it say.
 
jrgiancola said:
It seems to me that Pope Paul VI was aware of something that many of you are not aware of: the mother also has a right to life. The right to life does not end when we are expelled from the womb. I would also add that I do not accept, nor do I believe Pope Paul accepted, the so called “partial birth abortion.” But this is not actually abortion. It is infanticide and should not even be called abortion. Killing a fully grown fetus is infanticide. Still, I believe it is very important to remember that the mother also has a right to life, and it should not be the government telling her what she must do when presented with a situation where it comes down to the life of the mother versus the life of the unborn (not fully developed) child. That decision is for the mother to make, not the government, not the church and certainly not anti-abortion groups. Choosing whether or not I will live or die, assuming I have that choice, is my decision alone to be made between me and God; it’s not anyone else’s choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. But God judges our hearts. The teaching is clear. This is Catholic answers, not government answers. Before 1973, people had to go outside of the country or risk one in a back alley somewhere.

In the beginning, I watched on TV in 1972 as women made impassioned pleas to allow this procedure. God was mentioned, but later it was clear that too many abortions occurred for convenience. The baby was not viewed as a gift but a burden.

It seems whenever changes like this are first proposed there are a set of well-thought out reasons presented. Later, those reasons fall by the wayside. I stood in front of an abortion clinic and watched as a young lady was handed flowers as she walked out. I couldn’t understand it. No one is perfect. God knows I’m not. But I think of the niece of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, who was told she was aborting a ‘mass of tissue.’ Later, realizing the truth, she regretted her decision. What started out as a “use in case of emergency only” procedure has become abortion on demand.

God bless,
Ed
 
1ke said:
You do not understand what you are reading, and you certainly don’t understand what you are saying.

Abortion is intrinsically evil. Abortion is always immoral.

Theraputic treatments for diseases or conditions are not abortions. There is no such thing as an abortion for the purpose of treating a mother’s illness. Humanae Vitae is referring to legitimate medical treatments-- such as chemotherapy, hysterectomy, etc-- that indirectly result in the death of the child.

You seem so proud to have discovered this, but it is no discovery at all. The encyclical does not say what you are trying to make it say.
Click to expand...
I AM proud to have discovered this. Because the encyclical does indeed say what I interpret it to say. Our church does NOT require a woman to choose to die rather than have an abortion which will save her life. Catholic bishops say this; but Pope Paul did NOT say this. Pope Paul clearly was speaking of the only situation where the dictates of the encyclical could licitly be deviated from: a life-threatening disease of the mother. I believe this is the only valid reason for an abortion; not even rape or incest is a valid reason. However, the life of the mother IS A VALID REASON TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Neither you, nor the church, nor the government HAS ANY RIGHT TO TELL A WOMAN SHE MUST DIE RATHER THAN HAVE AN ABORTION THAT WILL SAVE HER LIFE. Jesus did not say it, St. Paul did not say it, and Pope Paul did not say it. Where do you get off making a life and death decision for another human being? You are not God, and I thank God for that fact. You have clearly demonstrated what I have always believed about fanatical pro-lifers: you are not really pro-life or you would be concerned about the life of the mother as well as the life of the unborn child. You are pro-(fanatical use of the name of God to force my moral precepts on other people) … kinda like Al Qaida does when they bomb buildings…
 
jrgiancola said:
I AM proud to have discovered this. Because the encyclical does indeed say what I interpret it to say. Our church does NOT require a woman to choose to die rather than have an abortion which will save her life. Catholic bishops say this; but Pope Paul did NOT say this. Pope Paul clearly was speaking of the only situation where the dictates of the encyclical could licitly be deviated from: a life-threatening disease of the mother. I believe this is the only valid reason for an abortion; not even rape or incest is a valid reason. However, the life of the mother IS A VALID REASON TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Neither you, nor the church, nor the government HAS ANY RIGHT TO TELL A WOMAN SHE MUST DIE RATHER THAN HAVE AN ABORTION THAT WILL SAVE HER LIFE. Jesus did not say it, St. Paul did not say it, and Pope Paul did not say it. Where do you get off making a life and death decision for another human being? You are not God, and I thank God for that fact. You have clearly demonstrated what I have always believed about fanatical pro-lifers: you are not really pro-life or you would be concerned about the life of the mother as well as the life of the unborn child. You are pro-(fanatical use of the name of God to force my moral precepts on other people) … kinda like Al Qaida does when they bomb buildings…
Click to expand...
No. With all due respect, that is simply wrong.

A medical procedure on the woman is by definition not an abortion.

A medical procedure on an in utero baby designed and intended to kill it is an abortion. By definition, an abortion is not designed or intended to save the woman’s life. Let me repeat the important phrase here: By definition

There is a clear cut demarcation there. You are constructing a straw man and then thrashing it all too well. But it is still a strawman.

I suspect part of the problem is that as a consequence of the abortionist axiom that there is no separate person in the womb to have a procedure on, there thus is seen to be no difference between a procedure on the baby and on the woman. They both are nominally on the woman. But of course that is simply incorrect.

Once one gets that distinction, the moral clarity between a procedure on the woman, and an abortion, become clear.

So with that distinction in mind, please reread your last few sentences after a short break. They lack both charity (and thus affront Truth) and logic. You can do yourself a favor, both in the eyes of the other posters here, and in the Lord, by retracting and (correctly and charitably) restating them.
 
jrgiancola said:
I AM proud to have discovered this. Because the encyclical does indeed say what I interpret it to say. Our church does NOT require a woman to choose to die rather than have an abortion which will save her life. Catholic bishops say this; but Pope Paul did NOT say this. Pope Paul clearly was speaking of the only situation where the dictates of the encyclical could licitly be deviated from: a life-threatening disease of the mother. I believe this is the only valid reason for an abortion; not even rape or incest is a valid reason. However, the life of the mother IS A VALID REASON TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Neither you, nor the church, nor the government HAS ANY RIGHT TO TELL A WOMAN SHE MUST DIE RATHER THAN HAVE AN ABORTION THAT WILL SAVE HER LIFE. Jesus did not say it, St. Paul did not say it, and Pope Paul did not say it. Where do you get off making a life and death decision for another human being? You are not God, and I thank God for that fact. You have clearly demonstrated what I have always believed about fanatical pro-lifers: you are not really pro-life or you would be concerned about the life of the mother as well as the life of the unborn child. You are pro-(fanatical use of the name of God to force my moral precepts on other people) … kinda like Al Qaida does when they bomb buildings…
Click to expand...
No, you are reading this completely wrong.Your interpretation of the Churches’ words are not in line with her teaching. Direct abortion is always intrinsically evil. Treatments that might result in the death of a child are permissable although they must be undertaken only under due diligence and prayer.
We are governed by the natural law which comes from God which says Thou Shalt not Murder. Abortion is always murder.
 
1ke said:
You do not understand what you are reading, and you certainly don’t understand what you are saying.

Abortion is intrinsically evil. Abortion is always immoral.

Theraputic treatments for diseases or conditions are not abortions. There is no such thing as an abortion for the purpose of treating a mother’s illness. Humanae Vitae is referring to legitimate medical treatments-- such as chemotherapy, hysterectomy, etc-- that indirectly result in the death of the child.

You seem so proud to have discovered this, but it is no discovery at all. The encyclical does not say what you are trying to make it say.
Click to expand...
This is exactly correct. The encyclical simply does not say what the OP alleges to have discovered. If it did say that, a generation of dissident theologians would long since not only have discovered it but made use of it, even within the lifetime of Paul VI.
 
jrgiancola said:
I AM proud to have discovered this. Because the encyclical does indeed say what I interpret it to say. Our church does NOT require a woman to choose to die rather than have an abortion which will save her life. Catholic bishops say this; but Pope Paul did NOT say this. Pope Paul clearly was speaking of the only situation where the dictates of the encyclical could licitly be deviated from: a life-threatening disease of the mother. I believe this is the only valid reason for an abortion; not even rape or incest is a valid reason. However, the life of the mother IS A VALID REASON TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Neither you, nor the church, nor the government HAS ANY RIGHT TO TELL A WOMAN SHE MUST DIE RATHER THAN HAVE AN ABORTION THAT WILL SAVE HER LIFE. Jesus did not say it, St. Paul did not say it, and Pope Paul did not say it. Where do you get off making a life and death decision for another human being? You are not God, and I thank God for that fact. You have clearly demonstrated what I have always believed about fanatical pro-lifers: you are not really pro-life or you would be concerned about the life of the mother as well as the life of the unborn child. You are pro-(fanatical use of the name of God to force my moral precepts on other people) … kinda like Al Qaida does when they bomb buildings…
Click to expand...
John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, infallibly decrees that abortion is always wrong. There are no exceptions. By what right does he declare this? By the authoritiy given to him by Christ.

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Evangelium Vitae, Parr 57

He leaves no room for exceptions. We either adhere to it or we suffer to lose our imortal souls.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
jrgiancola said:
I wonder how many pro-lifers have actually read Humanae Vitae. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are quite an eye-opener.
  1. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that 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.
  2. The Church, on the contrary, does NOT at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.
In other words, abortion is not illicit if it is truly a necessity to cure a mother’s illness, so long as it is not done merely as a mean of birth control.
Click to expand...
That is not what it says and Pope John Paul II clarified it.

A medical procedure to save the life of the mother, such as removing a cancerous tumor that cannot wait for the pregnancy to come to term, is permissible, even though it will most likely result in the death of the child. That’s what this means. In other words, you’re going after a tumor, not after the child… You cannot directly attack the child. Therefore, you cannot abort the child. In this case, the purpose of the procedure is to take care of a cancer. It is not the intent to kill the child.

When you kill the child, so that the mother’s life can be saved, that’s an abortion. That is never allowed. If the physician says that the only way to save the mother is to take the child out and goes after the child, that is murder. This is what Pope Paul VI calls directly willed and procured abortion.

Here is an article that I wrote for our archdiocese that clarifies this question.

Abortion vs Medical Care

If you want further clarification you can reach me via PM or through our site www.franciscansorlife.org

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Its amazing that I am currently reading Fr. Paul Marx’s auto biography ‘faithful for life’ and he actually mentions priests who were againt the Humane Vitae and dissented. He was the founder of HLC - Human life International.

I believe we all know inherently what the church is teaching, we try to argue to suit our wants and desires. Lets not do that. Do not touch a foetus in you, because he/she is a human being, another life, and must be sheltered and protected. The message is simple. If you are dying and you seek a cure which kills the foetus that is ok, but if you kill the foetus so you will prolong your life that is a big NO NO.

I guess where I am a bit confused is if the doctor told you there is 99% chance that by giving you this medicine to cure your disease, the side effect would kill your three month old foetus ( cause a miscarriage) should you go ahead with the treatment? when at the back of your mind you know that each sip of the medicine is killing the foetus. Can you rid yourself of the guilt if you do suffer miscarriage?

Pax et Bonum
Odopa
 
I would think the most common situation for this would be an ectopic pregnancy.

One treatment is to remove the fallopian tube, not kill the baby. The removal of the fallopian tube does kill the baby; but the procedure is a salpingectomy, not an abortion. Removal of the baby only (salpingostomy) would not be licit but would conserve the fallopian tube.

Another treatment is methotrexate; that also does directly kill the fetus but preserves the fallopian tube and preserves fertility in the event that the woman’s other tube or ovary is compromised.

However that is a direct abortion as well and is not moral. But that does bring up a moral conundrum: the baby will die anyway regardless of the treatment used. The illicit treatments preserve fertility and the ability to transmit life; the licit treatment is potentially sterilizing in cases where the other tube is compromised already (say by a previous ectopic pregnancy). I would hate to be in a position of having to decide between illicit treatment that preserves fertility or licit treatment that does not.
 
jrgiancola,

I think your point is well-made, but your emphasis is reversed.

It is not that killing a child is acceptable in order to save the life of a mother.

It is that saving the life of a mother is acceptable, even if it involves the loss of life of a child.
 
John Paul is very clear. You may not do anything that will directly kill the child, even if you know that the child is going to die, such as in ectopic pregnancies. You can’t go in an clean out the tube. That is a direct attack on the child.

The most important point in this discussion is that we have to realize that in disagreeing and questioning this, with whom are we disagreeing and whose wisdom are we questioning?

Do we have a right to question God? John Paul did not pull this out of his hat. This is found in revelation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top