C ATHOLICS AND ABORTION S lit —The Catholic doctrine in regard to
abortion was very inaccurately summarised by Katharine 74'hitchorn, quoting Dr. Glanville Williams, in your Issue of November 4. The unequivocal Catholic con- demnation of all direct abortion is not based on 'the Widely held theory that life starts with conception,' though admittedly, for those who hold this theory, It provides 'one of the strongest arguments against termination of pregnancy in any circumstances.' Catholic theologians have always shared the common doubt as to the precise moment at which a fertilised "um becomes a human being, nor has the Church ever intervened authoritatively to settle the con- troversy which has perennially divided them. But
Whether or not animation coincides with conception, Or follows only at a later stage in embryonic develop-
ment, the fact remains that, from the moment of con- ception, the embryo is a distinct and individual organism which is either actually or potentially human. Catholic moralists are therefore unanimous I9 holding that its life must be treated with the same inviolable respect as is accorded to that of an un- doubted human being. Wilful and direct extermina- tion of it may not certainly be homicide, but it is certainly a grave perversion of the order established by ithe Creator for the propagation of the human race ant, therefore a grave violation of the natural moral w For the same reason, the Church's Code of Canon Law prescribes that 'care must be taken to ensure that all abortive fetuses, whatever the date of their emission, shall be baptised, absolutely. if they are certainly alive, conditionally, if there is doubt' (can. 74 r)..It is, however, a gross distortion of Catholic doctrine and law to say, as Dr. Glanville's unnamed Catholic theologian is alleged to have said, that Priests who hold the theory of immediate animation should logically 'spend their time baptising the 1.11 ustrual flow,' in case it contains a fertilised ovum. The obligation enjoined in canon 747 is limited, like Moral and canonical obligations generally, to what
is morally possible and consequently to visible embryos and fetuses, Nor is it easy to understand the assertion, attributed to the same unnamed theolo- gian, that 'priests do not, in fact, perform the rites over a naturally aborted fcetus that they would over a dead baby.' Neither of these can be lawfully or validly baptised, if it is certainly dead; both alike must be baptised (not necessarily or even commonly by a priest), if life probably endures.—Yours faithfully,
L. L. MCREAVY
Professor of Moral and Canon Law Ushaw College. Durham
Previous page
