At long last, a clarification - though not unqualified - that took four months to come! It is in reference to the March 15, 2009, front-page article in L'Osservatore Romano in which the fairly new president of the Pontifical Academy for Life appears to censure the local Church hierarchy in Recife, Brazil, for condemning the medical abortion performed on a nine-year-old girl who conceived twins after being raped by her stepfather).
The article implied, at the very least, that the abortion was justified in this case, and criticized the actions of the local bishop, without ascertaining the facts nor asking the bishop first. In short, apart form the confused message Fisichella conveyed regarding the Church teaching on abortion, he was also unfair to the bishop involved.
Now, after the bishop in question has formally retired (he is 76) - with many news items about his retirement implying or saying outright that it was 'punishment' for his actions in connection with the case which took place more than half a year ago (much as even a veteran like John Allen wrote off Cardinal Castrillon's retirement at age 80 as 'punishment' for his 'shortcomings' in the Williamson case, even hough that was almost six months prior to his retirement) - comes a clarification from the CDF.
What has yet to be explained is why - if Vatican reporting is true - Cardinal Bertone, who rides herd over L'Osservatore Romano, asked Fisichella to write the article.
If only out of fairness, intramural politics or personal vendettas in the Vatican should not be played out in the OR - to which the rest of the Church outside of the Secretariat of State has no guaranteed access - any more than its editors' political biases should be reflected in their choice and treatment of stories. But both, unfortunately, appear to be the case.
Chiarification by the CDF
on procured abortion
Translated from
the 7/11/09 issue of
Many letters have recently come to the Holy See, even from personalities in the political and ecclesial world, about the confusion created in many nations, especially in Latin America, following the
manipulation and instrumentalization [fairness requires that the noun should simply be 'publication'] of an article by His Excellency Mons. Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the sad episode of the "Brazilian girl".
In that article, which appeared in
L'Osservatore Romano on March 15, 200i, the doctrine of the Church was proposed even while taking note of the tragic situation of the girl who -
as it was verified subsequently - had the benefit of every possible pastoral sensitivity, particularly of the then Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, His Excellency, Mons. Jose Cardozo Sobrinho.
In this respect, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates that the doctrine of the Church on procured abortion has not changed nor can it change.
This doctrine is stated in Numbers 2270-2273 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church as follows:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense,"7and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
"Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
"When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . .
"As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80
In the encyclical
Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed such doctrine with his authority as Supreme pastor of the Church:
"That the authority Christ conferred on Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops - who at vsarious times have condemned abortion and which in the previously cited consultation conducted worldwide, unanimously approved this doctrine - declares that direct abortion, whether intended as an end or as a means, always constitutes grave moral disorder, being the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
"This doctrine is founded on natural law and on the written Word of God, transmitted in the Tradition of the Church and taught in the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (No, 42)
In the case of procured abrtion for some complex and difficult cases, the clear and precise teaching of John Paul II is applicable:
"It is true that many times the choice of abortion represents a tragic and sorrowful decision for the mother, insofar as the decision to get rid of the product of conception is not due to purely selfish resons or reasons of convenience, but because it is desired to save some important benefits, such as her own health or a dignified way of life for the other members of the family.
"Sometimes, there is concern that the unborn child may be born to conditions of existence such as to make one think it would be better that he were not born.
"Nonetheless, these adn similar reasons no matter how grave and tragic, can never justify the deliberate suppression of an innocent human being" (Enc.
Evengelium vitae, No. 58).
As to the problem of certain medical treatments in order to save the health of the mother, one must distinguish between two different cases: on the one hand,
any intervention that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called 'therapeutic' abortion,
which can never be licit since it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; and on the other, ann intervention that is by itself non-abortive but could result in the death of the child as a collateral consequence.
"If, for instance, saving the life of the mother-to-be, independent of her pregnant state, would actively require surgical action, or other therapeutic application, which would have the death of the child as an accessory consequence - not wanted or intended in any way, but inevitable - such an act may not be considered a direct attempt against an innocent life.
"Under such conditions, the operation may be considered licit, like other similar medical interventions, as long as it has to do with protecting a good of such high quality, such as life, and the treatment cnanot be postponed until after the birth of the child, nor is there any other possible treatment" (Pius XII, Address to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famigle Numeroxse, Nov 27, 1951).
As for the responsibilities of health care workers, one must remember the words of John Paul II:
"Their profession makes them custodians and servants of human life. In the social and cultural context today, in which science and medical art are in danger of losing their inherent ethical dimension, they can sometimes be strongly tempted to transform themselves into artificers of manipulating life if not ouright agents of death.
"In the face of such a temptation, their responsibility has grown enormously today and it finds its most profound inspiration and strongest support precisely in the intrinsic and indispensable ethical dimension of the health professions, as recognized in the ancient and still current Hippocratic oath, according to which each health worker is asked to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness" (Enc. Evangelium vitae, No, 59).
But even this clarification - while it acknowledges that the ex-Archbishop of Olinda and Recife acted with appropriate 'pastoral sensitivity' - contrary to Mons. Fisichella's censoriousness - plays partisan by claiming 'manipulation and instrumentalization' of Fisichella's article.
While many in the secular media did do that rather gleefully, it is unfair to impute the same motivation to Catholic prelates and laymen alike who were greatly disturbed in theri conscience by Fisichella's article.
To begin with, OR never balanced its reporting on the case, even refusing to publish the immediate response of Bishop Sobrinho and other Brazilian bishops who came to his defense, to the point that these bishops had to say so to the secular media.
And we had to learn from Sandro Magister how half of the members of the Pontifical Academy for Life called on Fisichella to make a public clarification - which he also refused; that they then wrote the CDF which did not answer them but let it be known it had passed on their objections to the Secretariat of State, since Cardinal Bertone had reportedly asked Fisichella to write the article; and that finally, at least two of the dissatisfied academicians wrote the Pope himself to step into the picture.
Apparently, the Pope has laid down the law, but human intrigue continues to bedevil even this clarification. At the very least, the CDF clarification should also have mentioned the honest and concerned point of view of the protesting academicians, who were certainly not 'manipulating' or 'instrumentalizing' Fisichella's article in any way, since they properly made their protest in private.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/07/2009 07:47]