Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: Marty Helgesen Subject: Re: Changing Beliefs on Contraception References: <4m9l3p$8jf@geneva.rutgers.edu> <4mk5l7$cho@geneva.rutgers.edu> <4n930d$o3i@geneva.rutgers.edu> <4nopv1$1b6@geneva.rutgers.edu> <4nrea2$2pr@geneva.rutgers.edu> <4nubpu$49v@geneva.rutgers.edu> <4o3dib$707@geneva.rutgers.edu> Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article <4olqt1$crj@geneva.rutgers.edu>, "Fr. John W. Morris +" says: > >jeffrey.b.beshoner.1@nd.edu wrote: >> > >> Roman Catholic theology would react the same. In a case where a >> mother's life is threatened, a step which would save the life of the >> mother though cost the life of the child is permitted if the intent of >> the procedure it to protect the mother, not to harm the child. I am >> curious as to why you assume that Roman Catholic theologians would say >> she had to die to save the baby. > >Fr. John W. Morris responds: > >I apologize if I have misrepresented the position of the Roman >Catholic Church. However, when my children were born, the doctor told >us that he only worked at the county hospital because in the local >Catholic hospital, the nuns would not allow him to save the life of >the mother if it meant the death of the child. The original posting was imprecisely worded. A basic principle of Catholic moral theology is that one is not permitted to do evil in the hope that good will come from it (cf. Romans 3:8). However, it frequently happens that a single action will have more than one effect, some good and some evil. To help resolve situations in which there are both good and evil results of an action the Church developed what is known as the Principle of Double Effect. It is permissible to perform an action with both a good and an evil effect if and only if all four of these conditions are met: 1. The action must not be evil in itself. It must be good or morally indifferent. 2. The evil effect must not be the means of producing the good ef- fect. 3. The person acting must intend only the good effect and just permit the evil effect. 4. There must be sufficient reason for performing the action. That is, the good effect must be at least as important as the evil effect. One may not perform an action to a achieve a relatively minor good if one foresees that it will result in a grave evil. One example I've used frequently is a truck driver going down a hill and seeing a group of children in the road. He steps on his brakes and finds they failed so he cannot stop in time to avoid hitting them. He therefore drives off the road, going over a cliff or into a tree and is killed. While it would be possible for someone to commit suicide by driving off the road in exactly the same way, the driver is not guilty of suicide, nor of murder if there is someone else in the cab with him. 1. The action -- steering away from the group of children -- is good in itself. 2. The good effect -- saving the children -- is not accomplished by the death of the driver (and his passenger). If they miraculously survived the crash the children would still be safe. 3. The evil effect is foreseen but not intended or desired. 4. There is sufficient reason. The good effect is at least equal to, in this case better than, the evil effect. A similar situation, which happens occasionally in real life and is reported in the media, is that of a fighter pilot whose engine fails while he is flying over a populated area. If, instead of bailing out and saving his life, he stays with the plane to steer it into a vacant lot, or someplace like that, when it crashes so it won't hit occupied buildings he is not guilty of suicide. His death is fore- seen but unintended evil effect of preventing the plane from crashing into building and killing a lot of people. To apply this principle to the question of abortion, direct abortion -- deliberately killing the unborn child -- is never permitted not even if done to save the life of the mother. (Given the extreme rarity of such situations in modern medical practice this is a some- what abstract point, but if it were to arise, that would be guiding principle.) However, providing life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman which has the foreseen but unintended side effect of killing her unborn child is permitted. For example, performing a hysterectomy or giving radiation treatment to a woman with uterine cancer is a legitimate medical treatment, and is permissible even if the woman is pregnant and the treatment would result in the death of her baby. The treatment is good in itself. The cure of the cancer does not result from the death of the baby but is an unintended side effect. The death of the baby is not intended. There is sufficient reason, saving the mother, for permitting the death of the baby. This is not just my personal opinion. It is an elaboration of a discussion of the issue in _The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church_ by Father John A. Hardon, S.J. (Doubleday, 19740), a highly regarded exposition of traditional, orthodox Catholic teaching (p.336-337). I will add that this treatment is permitted but not required. A little while ago a pregnant woman in Italy was diagnosed with uterine cancer and heroically refused radiation treatment until after her baby was born, by which time the cancer was too advanced to be treat- ed. ------- Marty Helgesen Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu "Crossbows don't kill people. Quarrels kill people."