"The Bible is God's
Chart for you..."

As a basic premise, let me begin my answer by saying that "God is the Creator of all Things." The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that faith confirms this natural truth of creation. In Sacred Scripture, the first three chapters of Genesis are the most explicit in expressing the truths about creation: its origin, its end in God, its order and goodness, man's vocation, the drama of sin, and the hope of salvation.

Now, let me go directly to the motive and purpose of creation. First, we have to know that God created the world by a decision of his will, free from any necessity. That is our Faith. The Church teaches that God created the world freely, without having been force to do so by any kind of internal or external necessity. The First Vatican Council Stated: "In order to  manifest his perfection through the benefits that he bestows on creatures -  not to intensify his happiness or to acquire it - this one and only true God, by His goodness and almighty power and by a completely free decision, from the very beginning of time has created both orders of creatures in the same way out of nothing."  Sacred Scripture shows that  God's desire for something to exist is enough for that thing to receive its being. In the Book of Psalms, the complete freedom of God in creation is clearly mentioned: "Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth" (Ps 135:6). Among the Fathers of the Church, St. Irenaeus stated, "He made everything freely, and in the manner that he wanted." St. Augustine insisted that God did not need to create in order to have greater happiness. God, moved exclusively by his love, wanted to create all things (including man) in order to manifests his glory and make his creature share in his happiness. He is all-perfect and he is in need of nothing. He did not have to create in order to obtain some perfection he did not yet possess. That is why he created with complete freedom. He would not have been less God, nor less perfect, nor less good, if he had not carried out the work of creation. Additionally, God has the freedom of specification. This means that, even after deciding to create, he was not obliged to create this particular world. He could have made a completely different one. This world is just one of the those possible for the divine omnipotence.

The second truth is that, God created the world (including man) for his own glory, in order to manifest his perfection through the good things that he communicates to creatures. This truth of faith is clearly affirmed by the First Vatican Council which says, "If anyone...denies that the world was made for the glory of God: let him be anathema." The same council affirms that God created "in order to manifest his perfection through the benefits that he bestows on creatures."  In the book of Proverbs it also says: "The Lord has made everything for his own glory" (Prv 16:4). However, we have to understand, that God is not trying to acquire anything when he acts, because he cannot acquire anything that he does not already have. Therefore, the end of creation (including man) can be nothing but God himself. The only possible purpose of God's "ad-extra" operations are to manifest his perfection - his own goodness- as he communicates it.  Thus, it is proper for  creatures to manifest, through the goods they have received from their Creator, the perfection of the one who gave them those goods. In other words, it is proper of creatures to give glory to God.

I hope, in some way, I have given you an answer to your query. 

Q. Could you explain to me why the Catholic Church does not encourage Abortion?  Secondly, what are the Morality involve in Abortion?  Finally, generally speaking why is abortion problematic?  (Received August 22, 2009)

A. First of all, I thank you for your questions. Let me state very clearly the position of the Catholic Church as far as this issue is concerned, its morality, and the penalty incurred to those who procure direct abortion, and why the Church  does not encourage it. The teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion goes back to the first century. You can read this from “Didache,” a first-century collection of apostolic teachings, which states: “You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child.” This condemnation was repeated by, among others, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Aquinas, and by virtually every Pope in this century, as well as by the Second Vatican Council, which called an abortion an “Unspeakable crime,” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Since the first century, says the Catechism, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. It says that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is “gravely contrary to the moral law” (CCC, n. 2271). In other words, the Catholic Church does not permit the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child for any reason. In Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law it says that “a person who procures a completed abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.” This means that all those involved in the deliberate and successful effort to bring about a completed abortion, including the doctor, the woman, and family members, friends, and counselors who advised the abortion, would be automatically excommunicated, provided that each of these persons knew the Church’s penalty for this action but went ahead with it anyway. According to Canons 1323 and 1324, excommunication would not be automatically incurred if a person was truly ignorant of the penalty attached to procuring an abortion, was under the age of 16, thought that the law applied only to the person having the abortion and not to her accomplices, acted out of serious fear about parental or societal reaction to the pregnancy, or erroneously believed that the abortion was necessary to preserve the mother’s life. If the mother’s life is endangered, the Church expects the doctor to do everything possible to save the life of the mother and the baby. On the other hand, the Church does not forbid  indirect abortion, which is morally allowable if the death of the unborn child is not directly willed, but is rather the unintended side effect of a legitimate medical procedure. For instance, it would not be contrary to Catholic teaching to remove a cancerous uterus in order to save the mother’s life, knowing that the operation would cause the death of a the child who was growing inside that uterus but who was not yet able to live outside the mother. This situation is covered by what is known in Catholic morality as the principle of the double effect. That principle says that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided the following conditions are met: (1) The action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. Removal of the cancerous uterus is a good thing. (2) The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect. The death of the unborn child is not the cause of the good effect, but is only an unintended side effect of the operation to remove the cancerous uterus. (3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. There are no bad feelings toward the unborn baby and no wish that he or she should die. (4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. The reason is to save the life of the mother. This situation is quite different from the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child and is morally permissible as long as all four conditions are satisfied.

Now, what is the implication of this teaching for us? The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion," said that "a Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the cse of a law which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can  a Christian take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. MOrever, he may not collaborate in its application (n. 22); and the US CAtholic BIshops said in November 1989 that "no Catholic can responsibly take a 'pro-choice' stand when the 'choice' in question involves the taking of innocent human life."

There are those who make an important distinction between “freedom from” (negative freedom) and “freedom to” (positive freedom). For example, freedom from oppression and freedom to develop one’s potential.

Freedom can also signify “inner autonomy,” or master of one’s inner condition. This has several possible significances. It can mean the ability to act according to one’s reason , or values. That is why, spiritually oriented people have considered freedom to be a positive achievement of the human will rather than an inherent state. Schumacher, for example, held that “freedom is an inner condition, and that a human being cannot “have” freedom, but can make it his aim to become free.”

Now, why did I bore you with all these definitions of this word called freedom? Because I want to impress on you that when you speak of “freedom in religious life,”  it is not something that is equated of being emancipated  from authority, or rules and regulations, or the “freedom of choice” to observe  or not the three evangelical counsels – chastity, poverty and obedience (as a religious)…but it means simply “ a positive choice, an inner autonomy, an inner condition of the heart, that goes beyond the level of externals.  Chastity ‘for the sake of the Kingdom’, for example, which religious profess, must be esteemed an exceptional gift of grace. Vatican II says, “it uniquely frees the heart of man, so that he becomes more fervent in love for God and for all men.”  Voluntary poverty, in the footsteps of Christ, is another symbol of Christ which is much esteemed. With it, it enables them to share in the poverty of Christ. With regard to religious poverty it is by no means enough to be subject to superiors in the use of property. Religious should be poor in fact and in spirit, as Vat II admonishes. By their profession of obedience, religious offer the full dedication of their own wills as a sacrifice of themselves to God. Religious, moved by the Holy Spirit, subject themselves in faith to those who hold God’s place, their superiors. This is not a form of enslavement. Because, through the superiors, religious are led to serve all their brothers in Christ, just as Christ ministered to his brothers in submission to the Father and laid down his life for the redemption of many. Vatican II teaches: “Religious, therefore, should be humbly submissive to their superiors, in a spirit of faith and of love for God’s will, and in accordance with their rules and constitutions.” In this way, far from lowering the dignity of the human person, religious obedience leads it to maturity by extending the freedom of the sons of God.

You may have observed by now that “Freedom in religious Life” goes beyond the common definition or understanding of freedom, as we often know. In fact it can even mean the opposite. The more a religious observe the rules of his or her community, or follow humbly the commands of his or her superiors, or observed fervently the three evangelical counsels, the more “free” he or she becomes. Because, for a religious, “freedom” is equated with choice, an inner disposition, an inner autonomy, becoming a master of one’s inner condition.