May Catholics support a law that allows some abortion? (News in Brief: Vatican).

Vatican City--Is it morally justifiable to vote for or promote a law that accepts abortion with restrictions, as an alternative to a more permissive law already in force or about to be voted on?

This question was raised by Angel Rodriguez Luno, professor of moral theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, in the Vatican paper L'Osservatore Romano (Italian edition, Sept. 6; English edition, Sept. 13).

The final paragraph of the 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae #73 deals with this question. It says that "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. .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."

Luno adds two caveats:

1. It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it--to have as the object of a positive act of the will something which intrinsically contradicts the moral order, even when it is a lesser evil.

2. It is never licit to cooperate formally in evil--for example, directly participate in an act against innocent human life or collaborate in the creation or application of a seriously unjust law, such as one permitting abortion or euthanasia.

If a member of a legislative asssembly who is totally opposed to abortion, Luno says, cannot completely abrogate a gravely unjust law, but can abrogate it partially, he must do so, so long as it does not cause scandal. Parliamentarians who have presented the motion for abrogation have acted well, and are morally correct. This is not collaboration with a pro-abortion law--not cooperation in doing evil--but the excercise of their duty to abrogate, to the degree possible, a gravely unjust law.

There are further qualifications which Luno discusses, but this is essentially how he interprets Evangelium vitae #73. He makes clear what the Christian conscience necessarily exacts or prohibits.

Comment:

In Canada, the issue of what conscientious Catholics should or may do about abortion became an issue in January 1988, after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the existing law (dating from May 1969, allowing the killing of the unborn under certain prescribed conditions) was unconstitutional.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney launched first, "trial balloon" legislation, then a Bill described by him and the Canadian media as "a compromise" when in fact it was a straightforward licence for the killing of p re-born infants for any reason at all, at any place (hospital, doctor's office), up till moments before birth. In addition, it guaranteed physicians across Canada protection against lawsuits.

Upon presentation of the legislation in mid-1989, the response of the Canadian Bishops' Conference in Ottawa was unfavourable, requesting many alterations. Campaign Life and the pro-life movement in general, on the other hand, took the position that this Bill was a pro-abortion bill pure and simple without redeeming features whatever. When in the fall of 1990, the Prime Minister and his Justice Minister Kim Campbell announced that they would not permit amendments, the CCCB and a handful of Catholic supporters caved in, announcing they would accept the Bill.

In contrast, Catholic pro-lifers fought the Bill tooth and nail, including presentations to the Senate after the Commons had approved it. Their reasoning was identical to Professor Luno 's caveats, Nos. 1 and 2: "It is never lawful to do evil that good may come of it"; and "It is never licit to cooperate formally in evil."

The abortion Bill C-43 was defeated in the Senate in January 1991, in a tie vote of 43 to 43; thereupon the Prime Minister abdicated his responsibility and denied any interest in pursuing further legislation.

Today, in 2002, there are still Catholic Canadians who think Catholics should have accepted Bill C-43. Among them is Ms. Suzanne Scorsone, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Toronto. This time she is recommending--as an individual, not as archdiocesan spokesperson--that Bill C-56 on embryonic stem cells, which is before Parliament now, should be accepted.

Campaign Life Coalition, REAL Women, and their supporters once again oppose Bill C-56 on the same grounds as they opposed Bill C-43 in 1990 and 1991. One may not cooperate with the evil of killing embryonic stem cells who are human beings in their earliest stage of development (see also the interview of Professor Luno, Zenit, Oct. 3/02).