A columnist for The New York Times recently (27 May) attempted to defend a woman religious at a Catholic hospital in Arizona who last year "gave permission" for an abortion, allegedly "to save the mother’s life." The argument attacked Catholic doctrine and the local Bishop’s decision for "excommunicating" the "revered nun" whose biography "looks more like Jesus’s than the bishop’s does."
Apparently it never even occurred to the writer that both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn infant were unique, precious and unrepeatable, and hence must be safeguarded. Thus, it is not morally justifiable directly to terminate the life of any innocent human being, either the mother or her unborn infant. Again, medical personnel are required to do whatever is humanly possible to save the lives of both. Incidentally, an excommunication for direct abortion is automatic; Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law reads: "A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." (The idiom, latae sententiae, simply means "automatic" or ipso facto.) An unborn child is especially vulnerable; consequently, the severe penalty.
The seriously distorted reasoning behind the Arizona abortion espoused by a religious can be readily detected in a related story; specifically, the United States Bishops’ Conference’s reaction, during their May meeting, to the "profoundly flawed" and highly unsophisticated support of the national "health care" bill by some "Catholic" groups, such as the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Disappointed and disturbed by the views of such groups, the Bishops’ Conference has labeled their tactics as wounding Church unity. Such dissident opinions reflect either ignorance or nonacceptance of fundamental Church doctrine, and can only be perceived as arrogant revisions of unmistakably clear Biblically-founded norms.
All of this happened while, according to a recent front-page story in the Times, individual States are beginning to adopt stronger legislation protecting unborn human life. On 17 May, for example, the newspaper reported that the use of ultrasound has become a widely used means of helping mothers fully understand what an abortion entails; namely the termination of a new, innocent human being. So far, no fewer than 20 States encourage an ultrasound prior to decision-making. Three States, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, reportedly require the procedure.
The Times’ apparent anxiety about the growing trend is reflected in another front-page story on 3 June. Thus far, it reads, 11 States "have passed laws this year regulating or restricting abortion"; in four other States, at least one House of the Legislature has adopted such measures. And 13 other States "have introduced or passed similar legislation this year."
The tide for reverence for human life from its inception is clearly returning to what it was prior to Roe v. Wade, before the Supreme Court chose to enter the situation. America can never disintegrate into an entity in which safeguarding life as cited by the Declaration of Independence is not taken seriously; "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" can only follow if the right to life remains first and fundamental.
Our Founding Fathers, as the saying goes, "got it right."
There are no exceptions.
