Abortion and reducing time limits: helpful links

A quick post as much to give myself a convenient place for links to chase these issues up as anything else...

Anyone following some of the main Catholic blogs recently will have seen a debate around the reduction of time limits for abortion. As it is clear orthodox Catholic teaching that human life starts at conception and the direct, intended killing of such a life is always wrong, the debate has not centred on whether a reduction in some sense would 'solve' the problem of abortion, but rather, given this clear prohibition on abortion, whether Catholics in good conscience can support a reduction in time limits which would leave abortion otherwise legal.

In essence, the problem is one of, on the one hand, a possible reduction in lives lost, versus, on the other, possible co-operation with the morally wrong act of abortion.

Apart from the underlying theological and philosophical issues here, much of the discussion has centred on the authoritative teaching, Evangelium Vitae (EV) particularly the interpretation of section 73, paras 2 and 3:


In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. 

Now my reading of this is that the general prohibition in para 2, is then nuanced by para 3: Catholic legislators can vote for more restrictive legislation on the grounds that this does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. 

Paul Priest (in a discussion on Catholic and Loving it) has drawn my attention to a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 'Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons' (here) which contains the gloss on EV 73 in section 10:

If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

My reading of this is that it simply confirms the general teaching of EV 73 but applied in the specific context of same sex marriage (ie it isn't intended to clarify, but merely repeat the general principles). That said, I read it as making the same point that I have already noted: a vote for 'a more restrictive law' (EV) must be understood, ceteris paribus, as an attempt to repeal that original law rather than voting for whatever abortions remain after the new restriction ('it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment' (CDF)).

So that's my understanding so far. And that understanding, that voting for a reduction in the age limits for abortion is ceteris paribus licit, is the understanding held by (eg) John Finnis. Online materials which support a similar line are:

Luke Gormally: (see section 5) 'Personal and social responsibility in the context of the defence of human life:
the question of cooperation in evil' (here)

Angel Rodríguez Luño Evangelium Vitae 73: the Catholic lawmaker and the problem of a seriously unjust law.(Here)


Against that interpretation is the line that EV 73 3 has to be understood more restrictively. It does not support a fresh law with reduced limits (but still some abortion) because that is forbidden by the clear prohibition of section 73 2: it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it". The permissions of 73. 3 are restricted to simple repeal  (either of the whole law or particular clauses) or for separate measures which might restrict the harms without endorsing abortion. Arguments along this line can be found at:

Paul Priest's blogpost: 'Abortion limits a truly moral response' (here).
James Hanink 'Abortion, Prudence, and Solidarity' (here (PDF))
Michael Baker 'Mnsgr Luno's view of EV 73' (blogpost here).

Clearly, there are other, more scholarly works available off line: the above is simply an attempt to provide some serious reading which is available online. Secondly, I've tried to focus on just one issue: the interpretation of the Magisterial teaching contained in EV 73. There are other theological and philosophical issues at stake, and it may well be that if (as I believe) a vote for reducing time limits in abortion law would in principle be licit, there may other considerations that make it either in fact illicit or imprudent.

Anyway, hope I've set out the issues on both sides reasonably fairly. Please feel free to provide further links in any comments. I'm probably going to duck out of any discussion for a while a) because other duties call and b) I've got as far with the above as I think I can and I need to read and think about the issues while engaging with other literature (eg Colin Harte's book Changing Unjust Laws Justly).

(And that was supposed to be a quick post...Eeek!)

Was Cardinal O'Brien insulted?

I know bloggers are supposed to project an air of omniscience in which no topic, however arcane, or no piece of tittle tattle, however exclusive to the Holyrood village, is unsuitable material on which to exercise our nearly infinite intellects... But I really have absolutely no idea where this came from and where it's going to.


THE Scottish Government yesterday dismissed claims that the lead researcher on its same-sex marriage consultation “insulted” Christian views and was 
rude about Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

The allegations surfaced in a parliamentary question tabled by Michael McMahon, the Labour MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill.

Mr McMahon asked the Scottish Government about its position on “reports that the lead researcher on its consultation on civil partnership and same-sex marriage ‘insulted and belittled’ Christian views while preparing the report and ‘directed obscenities’ at Cardinal Keith O’Brien in the presence of other members of the analysis team.”

The reports were denied by Alex Neil, the minister in charge of the gay marriage legislation.

[The Scotsman]

It's all very unclear. Is it claimed that the researcher insulted him face to face? Or did s/he (the name on the consultation report is Lucy Robertson) simply badmouth him afterwards in office chat? (Given the usual mindset of those non-Catholics with a social science background in Scotland, it'd probably be more of a story if s/he hadn't badmouthed him.)

It'd be hard to demonstrate any bias in the report. Those of us who were naive enough to think there might be some engagement with the substance of our arguments won't have got much out of the finished article which is simply an analysis of the responses with no attempt to engage critically with any of the views. I'm not sure bias in wielding scissors and paste would be evident. The report fails to engage critically with the issues, but that could be said by both sides of the argument. They'd made up their minds. It was a mere formality.

Anyway, official report of the Parliamentary question here.

Question S4W-09697: Michael McMahon, Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 18/09/2012 To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reports that the lead researcher on its consultation on civil partnership and same sex marriage "insulted and belittled" Christian views while preparing the report and "directed obscenities" at Cardinal Keith O’Brien in the presence of other members of the analysis team. Answered by Alex Neil (02/10/2012): < >We have received no evidence to suggest that the lead analyst in relation to this consultation "insulted and belittled" Christian views and "directed obscenities" at Cardinal O'Brien. The analysis, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/07/5671/0, reflects the points made by Christians and others who responded to the consultation. The government is satisfied that the analysis of responses to the consultation reflects accurately and fairly the comments that were made by consultees responding to the consultation. Current Status: Answered by Alex Neil on 02/10/2012

Latin, the Church and Hobbits

Just picked up that the Hobbit has been translated into Latin. (H/T Remedia Fernandes.) I'll almost certainly go ahead and buy it, even if the comments (and examples) given by Alatius in a forum discussion do suggest the translation is less than ideal.

While these translations of modern classics into Latin are a great deal of fun (well, they amuse me!), they do raise a general point about the place of Latin in the Church. Most Catholic discussion of Latin focuses on the liturgy and particularly the never ending struggle between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass. That's not really something I want to get involved in: I simply follow Benedict XVI and particularly Summorum Pontificum in wanting both to be freely available.

However, the issue of Latin in the Church is wider than its liturgical use. For one thing, if Latin is to be widely used liturgically again, what does that entail for the proper education of priests and even more so, the laity? (I say 'even more so' because, while it seems obvious that priestly formation would have to include Latin, the issue of more Latin for the laity doesn't seem to have been widely addressed. Are Catholic schools boosting the Latin content of their curriculums?) The foundation of a Pontifical Academy for the promotion of Latin whilst excellent in itself then raises the question of what it will practically do to boost knowledge and use of Latin in the Church on the ground.

I was at the tail end of the generation that received some grounding of Latin in state schools. I don't know of any state schools that still teach Classical Latin and Greek in Scotland. There may be some, but a quick google and personal anecdote suggest that any that do will be rarae aves: certainly, none of my children have been offered the subjects.

The absence of Latin cuts off Catholics from a serious engagement with the pre-Vatican II Church. Certainly,  to get a good academic understanding of scholasticism, you need some familiarity with Latin. At the very least, failure to get such a grounding provides a psychological block to engaging with the pre-Vatican II Church: books and papers that relied on a familiarity of the reader with Latin become difficult to use; the constant use of technical phrases in a language that is little more than squiggles to the reader becomes irksome. Most importantly, the inevitable differences between English translations of fundamental Latin technical terms makes exact understanding of philosophical and theological terminology difficult.)

Without any Latin, the possibility of a hermeneutic of continuity is made much more difficult: the pre-Vatican II Church becomes linguistically foreign and recedes out of sight. It is perhaps the decline of the non-liturgical knowledge of Latin that is even more important than the decline of the liturgical use (even if the two are linked). A Church that has abandoned the scholarly use of a language that was the exclusive medium for its thought for most of the two thousand years of its existence is not and cannot be serious about continuity. It cannot, moreover, be entirely serious about lay understanding of theology if any knowledge of the language is confined to priests and a few specialized lay academics.

By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. 

(Orwell's 1984.)