Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

1. The problem of procured abortion and of its possible legal

liberalization has become more or less everywhere the subject of

impassioned discussions. These debates would be less grave were it not a

question of human life, a primordial value, which must be protected and

promoted. Everyone understands this, although many look for reasons, even

against all evidence, to promote the use of abortion. One cannot but be

astonished to see a simultaneous increase of unqualified protests against

the death penalty and every form of war and the vindication of the

liberalization of abortion, either in its entirety or in ever broader

indications. The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to

her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or

lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic. Because the Son of

God became man, there is no man who is not His brother in humanity and who

is not called to become a Christian in order to receive salvation from

Him.

2. In many countries the public authorities which resist the

liberalization of abortion laws are the object of powerful pressures aimed

at leading them to this goal. This, it is said, would violate no one's

conscience, for each individual would be left free to follow his own

opinion, while being prevented from imposing it on others. Ethical

pluralism is claimed to be a normal consequence of ideological pluralism.

There is, however, a great difference between the one and the other, for

action affects the interests of others more quickly than does mere

opinion. Moreover, one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext

for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life.

3. Numerous Christian lay people, especially doctors, but also parents'

associations, statesmen, or leading figures in posts of responsibility

have vigorously reacted against this propaganda campaign. Above all, many

episcopal conferences and many bishops acting in their own name have

judged it opportune to recall very strongly the traditional doctrine of

the Church.[1] With a striking convergence these documents admirably

emphasize an attitude of respect for life which is at the same time human

and Christian. Nevertheless, it has happened that several of these

documents here or there have encountered reservation or even opposition.

4. Charged with the promotion and the defense of faith and morals in the

universal Church,[2] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

proposes to recall this teaching in its essential aspects to all the

faithful. Thus in showing the unity of the Church, it will confirm by the

authority proper to the Holy See what the bishops have opportunely

undertaken. It hopes that all the faithful, including those who might have

been unsettled by the controversies and new opinions, will understand that

it is not a question of opposing one opinion to another, but of

transmitting to the faithful a constant teaching of the supreme

Magisterium, which teaches moral norms in the light of faith.[3] It is

therefore clear that this declaration necessarily entails a grave

obligation for Christian consciences.[4] May God deign to enlighten also

all men who strive with their whole heart to "act in truth" (Jn. 3:21).

5. "Death was not God's doing, he takes no pleasure in the extinction of

the living" (Wis. 1:13). Certainly God has created beings who have only

one lifetime and physical death cannot be absent from the world of those

with a bodily existence. But what is immediately willed is life, and in

the visible universe everything has been made for man, who is the image of

God and the world's crowning glory (cf. Gen. 1:26-28). On the human level,

"it was the devil's envy that brought death into the world" (Wis. 2:24).

Introduced by sin, death remains bound up with it: death is the sign and

fruit of sin. But there is no final triumph for death. Confirming faith

in the Resurrection, the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: "God is God, not of

the dead, but of the living" (Mt. 22:32). And death like sin will be

definitively defeated by resurrection in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-27).

Thus we understand that human life, even on this earth, is precious.

Infused by the Creator,[5] life is again taken back by Him (cf. Gen. 2:7;

Wis. 15:11). It remains under His protection: man's blood cries out to

Him (cf. Gen. 4:10) and He will demand an account of it, "for in the image

of God man was made" (Gen. 9:5-6). The commandment of God is formal: "You

shall not kill" (Ex. 20:13). Life is at the same time a gift and a

responsibility. It is received as a "talent" (cf. Mt. 25:14-30); it must

be put to proper use. In order that life may bring forth fruit, many tasks

are offered to man in this world and he must not shirk them. More

important still, the Christian knows that eternal life depends on what,

with the grace of God, he does with his life on earth.

6. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be

protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of

its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church

of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this

point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is

clearly said: "You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and

you shall not murder the infant already born."[6] Athenagoras emphasizes

that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to

procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those

still living in their mother's womb, "where they are already the object of

the care of divine Providence." Tertullian did not always perhaps use the

same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle:

"To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference

whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its

nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one."[8]

7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and

her Doctors have taught the same doctrine--the various opinions on the

infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the

illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the

opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until

after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the

sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this

first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following

periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even

during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was

in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall

certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties

against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It

decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who

procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The

Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That

person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been

conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that

abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the

Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest

severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of

certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the

moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the

new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the

same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the

most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct

abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John

XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life

"which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most

recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most

severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care

from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The

same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been

afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is

unchangeable."[18]

8. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human

reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a

human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a

personal subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his

acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of

himself; or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has

the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God,

man's soul is spiritual and therefore immortal. Hence man is open to God,

he finds his fulfillment only in Him. But man lives in the community of

his equals; he is nourished by interpersonal communication with men in the

indispensable social setting. In the face of society and other men, each

human person possesses himself, he possesses life and different goods, he

has these as a right. It is this that strict justice demands from all in

his regard.

9. Nevertheless, temporal life lived in this world is not identified with

the person. The person possesses as his own a level of life that is more

profound and that cannot end. Bodily life is a fundamental good, here

below it is the condition for all other goods. But there are higher values

for which it could be legitimate or even necessary to be willing to expose

oneself to the risk of losing bodily life. In a society of persons the

common good is for each individual an end which he must serve and to which

he must subordinate his particular interest. But it is not his last end

and, from this point of view, it is society which is at the service of the

person, because the person will not fulfill his destiny except in God. The

person can be definitively subordinated only to God. Man can never be

treated simply as a means to be disposed of in order to obtain a higher

end.

10. In regard to the mutual rights and duties of the person and of

society, it belongs to moral teaching to enlighten consciences; it belongs

to the law to specify and organize external behavior. There is precisely

a certain number of rights which society is not in a position to grant

since these rights precede society; but society has the function to

preserve and to enforce them. These are the greater part of those which

are today called "human rights" and which our age boasts of having

formulated.

11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods

and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental-- the condition of

all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not

belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to

recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is

evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not

recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is

antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly

unjust to refuse it.

12. Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more

justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains

complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened; it is not lost by

one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in

the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect

for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation

begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which

is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of

a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it

were not human already.

13. To this perpetual evidence--perfectly independent of the discussions

on the moment of animation[19]--modern genetic science brings valuable

confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is

established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this

individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined.

Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each

of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place

and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present

science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support

to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological

sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly

philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is

constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this

is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of

conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to

dare to risk murder. "The one who will be a man is already one."[20]

14. Divine law and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the

direct killing of an innocent man. However, if the reasons given to

justify an abortion were always manifestly evil and valueless the problem

would not be so dramatic. The gravity of the problem comes from the fact

that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by

denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to

attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We

do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of

health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden

represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons

to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the

importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of

honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim

only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to

dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning. With

regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father

or mother, can act as its substitute--even if it is still in the embryonic

stage--to choose in the child's name, life or death. The child itself,

when grown up, will never have the right to choose suicide; no more may

his parents choose death for the child while it is not of an age to decide

for itself. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even

very serious disadvantages.[21]

15. The movement for the emancipation of women, insofar as it seeks

essentially to free them from all unjust discrimination, is on perfectly

sound ground.[22] In the different forms of cultural background there is a

great deal to be done in this regard. But one cannot change nature. Nor

can one exempt women, any more than men, from what nature demands of them.

Furthermore, all publicly recognized freedom is always limited by the

certain rights of others.

16. The same must be said of the claim to sexual freedom. If by this

expression one is to understand the mastery progressively acquired by

reason and by authentic love over instinctive impulse, without diminishing

pleasure but keeping it in its proper place--and in this sphere this is

the only authentic freedom--then there is nothing to object to. But this

kind of freedom will always be careful not to violate justice. It; on the

contrary, one is to understand that men and women are "free" to seek

sexual pleasure to the point of satiety, without taking into account any

law or the essential orientation of sexual life to its fruits of

fertility,[23] then this idea has nothing Christian in it. It is even

unworthy of man. In any case it does not confer any right to dispose of

human life--even if embryonic--or to suppress it on the pretext that it is

burdensome.

17. Scientific progress is opening to technology--and will open still

more--the possibility of delicate interventions, the consequences of which

can be very serious, for good as well as for evil. These are achievements

of the human spirit which in themselves are admirable. But technology can

never be independent of the criterion of morality, since technology exists

for man and must respect his finality. Just as there is no right to use

nuclear energy for every possible purpose, so there is no right to

manipulate human life in every possible direction. Technology must be at

the service of man, so as better to ensure the functioning of his normal

abilities, to prevent or to cure his illnesses, and to contribute to his

better human development. It is true that the evolution of technology

makes early abortion more and more easy, but the moral evaluation is in no

way modified because of this.

18. We know what seriousness the problem of birth control can assume for

some families and for some countries. That is why the last Council and

subsequently the encyclical "Humanae vitae" of July 25, 1968, spoke of

"responsible parenthood."[24] What we wish to say again with emphasis, as

was pointed out in the conciliar constitution "Gaudium et spes," in the

encyclical "Populorum progressio" and in other papal documents, is that

never, under any pretext, may abortion be resorted to, either by a family

or by the political authority, as a legitimate means of regulating

births.[25] The damage to moral values is always a greater evil for the

common good than any disadvantage in the economic or demographic order.

19. The moral discussion is being accompanied more or less everywhere by

serious juridical debates. There is no country where legislation does not

forbid and punish murder. Furthermore, many countries had specifically

applied this condemnation and these penalties to the particular case of

procured abortion. In these days a vast body of opinion petitions the

liberalization of this latter prohibition. There already exists a fairly

general tendency which seeks to limit, as far as possible, all restrictive

legislation, especially when it seems to touch upon private life. The

argument of pluralism is also used. Although many citizens, in particular

the Catholic faithful, condemn abortion, many others hold that it is

licit, at least as a lesser evil. Why force them to follow an opinion

which is not theirs, especially in a country where they are in the

majority? In addition it is apparent that, where they still exist, the

laws condemning abortion appear difficult to apply. The crime has become

too common for it to be punished every time, and the public authorities

often find that it is wiser to close their eyes to it. But the

preservation of a law which is not applied is always to the detriment of

authority and of all the other laws. It must be added that clandestine

abortion puts women, who resign themselves to it and have recourse to it,

in the most serious dangers for future pregnancies and also in many cases

for their lives. Even if the legislator continues to regard abortion as an

evil, may he not propose to restrict its damage?

20. These arguments and others in addition that are heard from varying

quarters are not conclusive. It is true that civil law cannot expect to

cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects

it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in

order to avoid a greater one. One must, however, be attentive to what a

change in legislation can represent. Many will take as authorization what

is perhaps only the abstention from punishment. Even more, in the present

case, this very renunciation seems at the very least to admit that the

legislator no longer considers abortion a crime against human life, since

murder is still always severely punished. It is true that it is not the

task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather

than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all

opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.

21. The role of law is not to record what is done, hut to help in

promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to

preserve each person's rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do

so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to

sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper

and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men's

hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to

formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand

better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain

from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed

to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance

that a law is not a law at all.

22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid

down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in

itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in

principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda

campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not

collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that

doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in

abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional

situation.

23. On the contrary, it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society

and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived,

so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child

coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and

for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for

illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption--a whole

positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a

concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.

24. Following one's conscience in obedience to the law of God is not

always the easy way. One must not fail to recognize the weight of the

sacrifices and the burdens which it can impose. Heroism is sometimes

called for in order to remain faithful to the requirements of the divine

law. Therefore, we must emphasize that the path of true progress of the

human person passes through this constant fidelity to a conscience

maintained in uprightness and truth; and we must exhort all those who are

able to do so to lighten the burdens still crushing so many men and women,

families and children, who are placed in situations to which, in human

terms, there is no solution.

25. A Christian's outlook cannot be limited to the horizon of life in this

world. He knows that during the present life another one is being

prepared, one of such importance that it is in its light that judgments

must be made.[26] From this viewpoint there is no absolute misfortune here

below, not even the terrible sorrow of bringing up a handicapped child.

This is the contradiction proclaimed by the Lord: "Happy those who mourn:

they shall be comforted" (Mt. 5:5). To measure happiness by the absence of

sorrow and misery in this world is to turn one's back on the Gospel.

26. But this does not mean that one can remain indifferent to these

sorrows and miseries. Every man and woman with feeling, and certainly

every Christian, must be ready to do what he can to remedy them. This is

the law of charity, of which the first preoccupation must always be the

establishment of justice. One can never approve of abortion; but it is

above all necessary to combat its causes. This includes political action,

which will be in particular the task of the law. But it is necessary at

the same time to influence morality and to do everything possible to help

families, mothers and children. Considerable progress in the service of

life has been accomplished by medicine. One can hope that such progress

will continue, in accordance with the vocation of doctors, which is not to

suppress life but to care for it and favor it as much as possible. It is

equally desirable that, in suitable institutions, or, in their absence, in

the outpouring of Christian generosity and charity every form of

assistance should be developed.

27. There will be no effective action on the level of morality unless at

the same time an effort is made on the level of ideas. A point of view--or

even more, perhaps a way of thinking--which considers fertility as an evil

cannot be allowed to spread without contradiction. It is true that not all

forms of culture are equally in favor of large families. Such families

come up against much greater difficulties in an industrial and urban

civilization. Thus in recent times the Church has insisted on the idea of

responsible parenthood, the exercise of true human and Christian prudence.

Such prudence would not be authentic if it did not include generosity. It

must preserve awareness of the grandeur of the task of cooperating with

the Creator in the transmission of life, which gives new members to

society and new children to the Church. Christ's Church has the

fundamental solicitude of protecting and favoring life. She certainly

thinks before all else of the life which Christ came to bring: "I have

come so that they may have life and have it to the full" (Jn. 10:10). But

life at all its levels comes from God, and bodily life is for man the

indispensable beginning. In this life on earth sin has introduced,

multiplied and made harder to bear suffering and death. But in taking

their burden upon Himself, Jesus Christ has transformed them: for whoever

believes in Him, suffering and death itself become instruments of

resurrection. Hence Saint Paul can say: "I think that what we suffer in

this life can never be compared to the glory, as yet unrevealed, which is

waiting for us" (Rom. 8:18). And, if we make this comparison we shall add

with him: "Yes, the troubles which are soon over, though they weigh

little, train us for the carrying of a weight of eternal glory which is

out of all proportion to them" (2 Cor. 4:17).

The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the

undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion

and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

on November 18, the Commemoration of the Dedication of the Basilicas of

Saints Peter and Paul, in the year 1974.

Franciscus Card. SEPER

Prefect

+ Hieronymus HAMER

Titular Archbishop of Lorium

Secretary

ENDNOTES

1. A certain number of bishops' documents are to be found in Gr. Caprile,

"Non Uccidere, Il Magistero della Chiesa sull'aborto." Part II, pp.

47-300, Rome, 1973.

2. "Regimini Ecclesiae Universae," III, 1, 29. Cf. ibid., 31 (AAS 59

[1967], p. 897). On the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

depend all the questions which are related to faith and morals or which

are bound up with the faith.

3. "Lumen gentium," 12 (AAS 57 [1965], pp. 16-17). The present Declaration

does not envisage all the questions which can arise in connection with

abortion: it is for theologians to examine and discuss them. Only certain

basic principles are here recalled which must be for the theologians

themselves a guide and a rule, and confirm certain fundamental truths of

Catholic doctrine for all Christians.

4. "Lumen Gentium," 25 (AAS 57 [1965], pp. 29-31).

5. The authors of Scripture do not make any philosophical observations on

when life begins, but they speak of the period of life which precedes

birth as being the object of God's attention: He creates and forms the

human being, like that which is moulded by His hand (cf. Ps. 118:73). It

would seem that this theme finds expression for the first time in Jer.

1:5. It appears later in many other texts. Cf. Is. 49:1-5; 46:3; Jb.

10:8-12; Ps. 22:10; 71:6; 139:13. In the Gospels we read in Luke 1:44:

"For the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt

for joy."

6. "Didache Apostolorum," edition Funk, "Patres Apostolici," V, 2. "The

Epistle of Barnabas," IX, 5 uses the same expressions (cf. Funk, l.c.,

91-93).

7. Athenagoras, "A plea on behalf of Christians," 35 (cf. PG. 6, 970: S.C.

3, pp. 166-167). One may also consult the "Epistle to Diogentus" (V, 6

Funk, o.c., I 399: S.C. 33), where it says of Christians: "They procreate

children, but they do not reject the foetus."

8. Tertullian, "Apologeticum" (IX. 8 PL. 1, 371-372: Corp. Christ. 1, p.

103, 1, 31-36).

9. Canon 21 (Mansi, 14, p. 909). Cf. Council of Elvira, canon 63 (Mansi,

2, p. 16) and the Council of Ancyra, canon 21 (ibid., 519). See also the

decree of Gregory III regarding the penance to be imposed upon those who

are culpable of this crime (Mansi 13, 292, c. 17).

10. Gratian, "Concordantia Discordantium Canonum," c. 20, C. 2, q.[2].

During the Middle Ages appeal was often made to the authority of St.

Augustine who wrote as follows in regard to this matter in "De Nuptiis et

Concupiscentiis," c. 15: "Sometimes this sexually indulgent cruelty or

this cruel sexual indulgence goes so far as to procure potions which

produce sterility. If the desired result is not achieved, the mother

terminates the life and expels the foetus which was in her womb in such a

way that the child dies before having lived, or, if the baby was living

already in its mother's womb, it is killed before being born." (PL 44,

423-424: CSEL 33, 619. Cf. the "Decree of Gratian" q. 2, C. 32, c. 7.)

11. "Commentary on the Sentences," book IV, dist. 31, exposition of the

text.

12. Constitution "Effraenatum" in 1588 ("Bullarium Romanum," V, 1, pp.

25-27; "Fontes Iuris Canonici," I, no. 165, pp. 308-311).

13. Dz-Sch. 1184. Cf. also the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of Pius IX

(Acta Pii IX, V, 55-72; AAS 5 [1869], pp. 305-331; "Fontes Iuris

Canonici," III, no. 552, pp. 24-31).

14. Encyclical "Casti Connubii," AAS 22 (1930), pp. 562-565; Dz- Sch.

3719-21.

15. The statements of Pius XII are express, precise and numerous; they

would require a whole study on their own. We quote only this one from the

Discourse to the Saint Luke Union of Italian Doctors of November 12, 1944,

because it formulates the principle in all its universality: "As long as a

man is not guilty, his life is untouchable, and therefore any act directly

tending to destroy it is illicit, whether such destruction is intended as

an end in itself or only as a means to an end, whether it is a question of

life in the embryonic stage or in a stage of full development or already

in its final stages" (Discourses and Radio-messages, VI, 183ff.).

16. Encyclical "Mater et magistra," AAS 53 (1961), p. 447.

17. "Gaudium et spes," 51. Cf. 27 (AAS 58 [1966], p. 1072; cf. 1047).

18. The speech, "Salutiamo con paterna effusione," December 9, 1972, AAS

64 (1972), p. 737. Among the witnesses of this unchangeable doctrine one

will recall the declaration of the Holy Office, condemning direct abortion

(Denzinger 1890, AAS 17 [1884], p. 556; 22 [1888-1890], 748; Dz-Sch 3258).

19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment

when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on

this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from

the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It

is not within the competence of science to decide between these views,

because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.

It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains

independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is

still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul

in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other

hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can

never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve

accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in

possession of his soul.

20. Tertullian, cited in footnote 8.

21. Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, wrote on October 19, 1973, to

Cardinal Dopfner, regarding the protection of human life: "(Die Kirche)

kann jedoch sur Behebung solcher Notsituationen weder empfangnisverhutende

Mittel noch erst recht nicht die Abtreibung als sittlich erlaubt erkennen"

("L'Osservatore Romano," German edition, October 26, 1973, p. 3).

22. Encyclical "Pacem in terris." AAS 55 (1963), p. 267. Constitution

"Gaudium et spes," 29. Speech of Paul VI, "Salutiamo," AAS 64 (1972), 779.

23. "Gaudium et spes," 48: "Indole autem sua naturali, ipsum institutum

matrimonii amorque coniugalis ad procreationem et educationem prolis

ordinantur, iisque veluti suo fastigio coronantur." Also paragraph 50:

"Matrimonium et amor coniugalis indole sua ad prolem procreandam et

educandam ordinantur."

24. "Gaudium et spes," 50-51. Paul VI, Encyclical "Humanae vitae," 10 (AAS

60, [1968], p. 487).

25. "Gaudium et spes," 87. Paul VI, Encyclical "Populorum progressio," 31:

Address to the United Nations, AAS 57 (1965), p. 883. John XXIII, "Mater

et magistra," AAS 53 (1961), pp. 445-448). Responsible parenthood

supposes the use of only morally licit methods of birth regulation. Cf.

"Humanae vitae,"[14] (ibid., p. 490).

26. Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, wrote to the World Congress of

Catholic Doctors held in Barcelona, May 26, 1974: "Por lo que a la vida

humana se refiere, esta non es ciertamente univoca, mas bien se podria

decir que es un haz de vidas. No se puede reducir, sin mutilarlas

gravemente, las zonas de su ser, que, en su estrecha dependencia e

interaccion estan ordenadas las unas a las otras: zona corporal, zona

afectiva, zona mental, y ese transfondo del alma donde la vida divina,

recibida por la gracia, puede desplegarse mediante los dones del Espiritu

Santo" ("L'Osservatore Romano," May 29, 1974).

Made available to the net by:

Paul Halsall

Halsall@murray.fordham.edu