NATURAL LAW AND ABORTIONN

There is a systemic flaw that is endemic to the way the Roman Catholic Church operates and it is predicated on what the Church calls "natural law." Natural law is presumed to be immutable God given "truths;" most notably those which address ethical, moral, and theological beliefs the Roman Catholic Church believes are obvious via reason to the human person. Moreover, once identified and articulated by the Church especially if codified as Church dogma or doctrine, such "truths" are not only immutable but any new understanding of what that "truth" speaks to predicated on new information or interpretation must conform to the already existing body of natural law.

For example, consider the Roman Catholic Church’s position on abortion. In the primitive Christian Church there was no consensus on when human life or ensoulment occurred. Most often individual bishops made the decision for their diocese predicated on Plato’s comment in the Republic which was at "quickening," or a live birth, or imposed their personal opinion. Three early Church Councils: Elvira (303-309), Ancyra (314), and Trullo (692) all in what is now Spain, reached different opinions but these opinions were not accepted by the universal Church. Pope Sixtus V in 1588 declared that both contraception and abortion resulted in excommunication. However, his successor Pope Gregory XII lifted the ban on contraception and made abortion after "quickening" a sin but not one of excommunication.

It is clear from the above that until 1588 the Roman Catholic Church had discerned no natural law regarding abortion. However, that was to change in 1854 when Pope Pius IX declared the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without "the stain of Original Sin on her soul" so that she could give birth to Jesus as both fully human and fully divine. Thus according to the Dogma there could be no question of when the fetus that would become the person Mary was conceived, became human, or was ensouled. 

St. Augustine, the author of the concept of Original Sin in the late fourth century, stated that Original Sin is passed to the next generation by sexual intercourse that results in conception. As Mary was born without Origin Sin, the Roman Catholic Church declared that ensoulment occurred at the "moment of conception." Thus with the "moment of conception" now defined as the beginning of human life, human person hood, and ensoulment, the Dogma codified these "truths" as natural law.

Consequently, since the declaration of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, abortion is defined by the Roman Catholic Church as any human intervention that occurs after the "moment of conception" that in any way leads to a negation of the live birth of the fetus.  However, what must be understood is that this definition of abortion and its subsequent ban is not predicated on the principle of first cause which has been central to Roman Catholic theology since it was established by St. Thomas Aquinas in the middle of the thirteenth century. This is because in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, contrary to its mantra of "right-to-life" from conception to natural death, "life" is not the first cause that prohibits abortion. The first cause that prohibits abortion is ensoulment because it is the belief that Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin on her soul and the Church could not prove when the soul entered the body that it chose the ambiguous phrase, “moment of conception.” Consequently, “human life” and "person hood" are secondary causes that flow from and require a first cause which is theological, not the science of human developmental biology, belief that there is a "moment of conception."

Where this brings us is that the "moment of conception" is a theological construct predicted on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is not predicated on the biology of conception.

While the Roman Catholic Church defines a "moment of conception" and bans abortion from this point on, developmental biologists reject the concept of a "moment of conception." This is because from the moment the sperm makes contact with the outer membrane of the ovum a complex transformational chemical process begins that takes at least 36-48 hours and up to 72 hours to complete. However even the completion of this window, not a moment, is rejected by most developmental biologists and ethicists including Roman Catholic ones as the beginning of human life and human person hood because there are other significant markers that they believe is the beginning of human life and person hood.

These markers are too detailed to analyze here but include in addition to the genetic view cited above held by the Roman Catholic Church is the embryological view which requires the implantation of the zygote into the wall of the uterus which makes the splitting of the zygote into two or more individuals impossible that takes up to fifteen days from the completion of fertilization. There is also the neurological view that cites the 25^th week of pregnancy comprised of three distinct stages. Finally, there is the ecological/technological view that states human life and human person hood do not begin until a fetus becomes a live birth and is a baby.

Why is it that when the "moment of conception" is a biological myth predicated on Church dogma and that most developmental biologists and ethicists use the neurological view as the beginning of human life, that the Roman Catholic Church does not revise its position on when human life and human person hood begins? The reason is that they cannot do so because the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which in turn created a "natural law" regarding the "moment of conception," will not allow them to do so.

I have not written the above with the intent to change anyone's personal faith beliefs or personal belief regarding abortion. Rather, I wrote it to illustrate why the Roman Catholic Church once it takes a position on what it considers an ethical, moral, or theological issue predicated on natural law, finds it impossible to change that position even in the face of what any rational person using reason and logic considers irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

From this perspective I am reminded of the question raised when I was a seminarian at St. Mary’s Roman Catholic seminary. The question was, “What does it take to be a “good Catholic?” In other words, what does it take to accept the teaching of the Magisterium in the face of reason and logic that debunks the validity of Catholic dogma and doctrine?

If we understand that faith, the faith that any religion or denomination requires is at its essence irrational and that human beings are rational beings, then for one to have faith they must deny logic, reason, and rationality. From this we may extrapolate that the person with the greatest faith, the one who accepts the most irrational dogma and doctrine as “truth,” is the person who is most irrational in that they can suspend and deny reason and logic to a greater degree than can others.

In no religion more than Christianity and in no Christian denomination more than Roman Catholicism must one be irrational to accept the Church’s dogma and doctrine as “truth.” Why? Because it is not rational to belief that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. It is not rational to believe that there is such a thing as Original Sin that is transmitted via sexual intercourse from generation to generation to say nothing of the Church’s claim that of all the human beings ever born Mary is the only one born without it. It is not rational to believe that a human being, the pope, has the ability to speak infallibly when he speaks in the name of all Christians on matters of faith and morals. It is not rational to believe that as the Church proclaims only it has the full means of salvation. It is not rational to believe that the bread and wine used at the Holy Eucharist is somehow transformed into the “Real Presence;” that is, the Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ.

Yet, these and many other beliefs are required if one is to be a “good Catholic.” From this perspective is easy to see how the Roman Catholic Church expects “good Catholics” to deny the facts of human developmental biology and instead believe there is a “moment of conception” predicated on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Moreover, the Church believes that as “good Catholics” can deny logic and reason to accept other illogical and unreasonable dogmas and doctrines, they will accept the illogic and unreasonableness of the “moment of conception” and thus deny that abortion can ever be a licit medical procedure regardless of the damage to the fetus or danger to the woman’s health or life.