A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook

A Pro-Life
Pastoral
Handbook
By Brian Clowes, Ph.D.
Foreword by
Rev. Frank Papa, S.O.L.T., J.C.D.
Introduction by
Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula, J.D., S.T.D.
Human Life International

Nihil obstat: Reverend Thomas J. Lehning
Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: + Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of Arlington
July 14, 2010
The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a

book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implica-
tion is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil
Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or state-
ments expressed.
© 2010 Human Life International®
Human Life International®

4 Family Life Lane
Front Royal, Virginia 22630 USA
www.hli.org
All rights reserved.

Portions of this book may be reproduced for educational
purposes provided full credit is given.
Printed in the United States of America.
ISBN: 978-1-55922-058-3
Contents
Contraception
1. Married couples, HIV and condoms.............................. 1
2. The birth control pill for acne......................................... 4
3. Contraception to alleviate overpopulation...................... 5
4. Why doesn’t the Church change its teachings
on contraception?......................................................... 9
5. Promoting contraception to reduce abortion................ 11
6. Depo-Provera — Abortifacient or contraceptive?.......... 16
7. Sterilization to protect the mother’s health................... 18
8. Sterilization in the later years........................................ 22
9. Conscience and contraception...................................... 25
10. Contraception for teens “doing it anyway”................. 30
11. Natural Family Planning and a drunken husband....... 32
12. The “morning-after pill” and rape............................... 34
13. “Imposing my values” regarding contraception........... 35
14. Natural Family Planning as “Catholic birth control”.. 36
15. Contraception and the very poor family..................... 39
Abortion
16. Fatal birth defects and abortion.................................. 42
17. Rape, incest and abortion........................................... 44
18. Young girls and secret abortions................................. 47
19. Unrepentant abortion and Holy Communion............ 50
20. Should only women speak about abortion?................. 53
21. “Thousands of women” dying of illegal abortions....... 55
22. Ectopic pregnancy, abortion, and the “double effect”.. 58
iii
iv Pro-Life Handbook
23. Pro-abortion politicians presenting themselves

for Communion......................................................... 61
24. Abortion and the role of guilt..................................... 63
25. “Free choice” and abortion......................................... 65
26. It’s her body, isn’t it?................................................... 67
End of Life Issues
27. Nutrition, hydration and “quality of life”................... 70
28. End of life care and painkillers................................... 72
29. “Living wills” and other advance directives................. 76
30. “Death with Dignity”................................................. 78
Homosexuality
31. Blessing their union?.................................................. 81
32. Sinfulness................................................................... 84
33. Civil Rights................................................................ 85
34. Credibility of the Church........................................... 87
The Sacrament of Matrimony
35. Living together before marriage.................................. 90
36. Annulment for abused wife........................................ 93
Assisted Reproductive Technologies
37. Infertile couples.......................................................... 96
38. In-vitro fertilization.................................................... 98
39. Surrogate motherhood ............................................ 101
“This book is a compact and indispensable guide for priests,
seminarians and active lay people who need to answer dif-
ficult moral questions in a concise and understandable
manner.”
—Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B.*
1920 - 2010
Founder of Human Life International
*This statement was given by Fr. Marx in the summer of 2009.

Chapter 1
Contraception
1. Married couples, HIV and condoms
A married couple in my parish came to me for coun‑
seling. He is HIV positive; she is not. In this very
special case, may I counsel them to use condoms?
From a purely scientific viewpoint, condoms are a
dismal failure — not only at preventing pregnancy, but
also at stopping the transmission of HIV. In fact, HIV/
AIDS rates are highest precisely in nations where con-
doms are used the most.1
One study followed a number of couples where the
husband was HIV positive, the wife did not have HIV,
and they used condoms faithfully every time they had
sexual relations. After only eighteen months, thirty
percent of the wives were HIV positive!2
A summary of studies by the “family planner’s
bible,” Contraceptive Technology, showed that, of
more than 25,000 condoms, one in twelve suffered
a catastrophic failure: tearing, breaking, or slipping
off.3 This means that condoms actually help pro-
mote — not prevent — the widespread transmission
1
2 A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook
of HIV due to the false sense of security that they

promote.
The situation where a serodiscordant couple is hav-
ing marital relations while using condoms is no differ-
ent than the husband holding a gun to his wife’s head
with one out of twelve chambers having a bullet in it.
Sooner or later, the gun is going to fire — maybe even
on the first try!
If you are confronted with a situation where a hus-
band has HIV but his wife does not, there are only two
possible choices: abstinence or a death sentence for the
wife. This is a harsh and very unpleasant reality, but if
a husband in this situation truly loves his wife, he will
want what is best for her and will not endanger her.
Despite what the world teaches, nobody has died
from not having sex. Rather, millions have died from
having too much sex.
In certain situations, the husband may have been
aware that he was HIV positive on the day he married
his wife. Although being HIV positive is not an im-
pediment to marriage in and of itself, if he concealed
the fact that he was indeed HIV positive at the time of
the marriage, an action against the validity of the mar-
riage could most probably be brought on the grounds
of fraud. If he contracted HIV through extramarital sex
after marriage, there are legitimate grounds for separa-
tion of the spouses.
Sexual relations are a source of grace in a marriage,
Contraception 3
and promote a special bond between husband and

wife. However, as strange as it may sound in today’s
world, sex is not necessary for a person to live, and it is
not even necessary in a marriage — particularly when
the life of one of the spouses may very well be lost as
a result.
A wife’s efforts to preserve her own life in this situ-
ation are not selfish; she is performing her duty before
God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that
“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who
has given it to him. It is God who remains the sover-
eign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life grate-
fully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of
our souls” (¶2280).
1. See Human Life International’s full-color pro-life research

brochure on condoms, which is a complete scientific rebuttal
to the claim that condoms prevent pregnancy and HIV. This
brochure includes the results of a study that shows that HIV
rates are highest in African nations whose people use the most
condoms. The brochure is available from HLI and is also on
HLI’s Pro-Life CD Library.
2. “Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children and House-

hold Contacts of Adults with AIDS.” Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), February 6, 1987.
3. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (17th

Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998). Ta-
ble 16‑3, “Prospective Studies of Condom Breakage and Slip-
page,” pages 330 to 332.
 Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶2370.
2. The birth control pill for acne

A local doctor put one of my young woman parish‑
ioners on the birth control pill to help clear up her
severe case of acne. Is this good medical practice?
Prescribing the birth control pill or oral contracep-
tive (OC) for an off-label purpose is certainly not good
medical practice. Perhaps some doctors want to avoid
the possibility of causing birth defects in unborn chil-
dren with anti-acne products such as Accutane, which
have proven to be teratogenic (causing birth defects).
Some OC manufacturers advertise that they help
improve the complexions of young women. However,
this is merely a side effect. The purpose of the OC is
to render women infertile. OCs have many serious
negative side effects, including stroke, heart attack, and
deep vein thrombosis. These dangers far outweigh the
incidental cosmetic benefits of OC use.
A doctor should simply prescribe a medication
whose purpose is to clear up acne. New medical ad-
vances in dermatology have made the oral contracep-
tive obsolete for the purpose of clearing up a woman’s
complexion, and prescribing them for this purpose is
bad medical practice. After all, the doctor would not
prescribe an acne medicine to limit fertility, would he?
In summary, a physician who prescribes the OC to
Contraception 5
clear up a woman’s complexion is willing to chemically

mutilate her entire reproductive system. Some doctors
will use any excuse to get young women on the birth
control pill.
Another problem is that a young woman who is
not sexually active but who is taking the OC for cos-
metic reasons may be tempted to engage in sexual ac-
tivity because she believes that she is “safe” from preg-
nancy. Her boyfriend(s) may also see her OC use as a
“green light” for sexual activity and put pressure on her
to comply with their desires.
Doctors who prescribe OCs for cosmetic reasons
are therefore leading women into a near occasion of
sin.
3. Contraception to alleviate overpopulation

I have seen in many news reports that the United
Nations and the local Family Planning Association
say that my country is overpopulated. May I say
that contraception is allowable since it will help cut
down on hunger and alleviate resource shortages?
Ever since Paul Ehrlich wrote his atrocious and
misleading book The Population Bomb in 1968, people
everywhere have been frightened by overpopulation.
However, the facts show that there never was an over-
population problem in the world — and that there
never will be.
We often hear that “the population of the world is

doubling every 35 years” and that “we have 90 million
new mouths to feed every year.”
But, in reality, the rate of world population increase
has been declining steeply since 1970, when it was 2.02
percent per year. Now (2010), the population of the
world is growing by only 0.92 percent per year. Ac-
cording to the United Nations Population Information
Network, the population of the world will stop grow-
ing in about the year 2040.1
The current (2010) population of the world is
about 6.9 billion persons. The population of the world
will only gain a little more than one billion more peo-
ple and will level out at 8.0 billion in 2040. The world
population will then begin to decline.2
The future of the world can be seen in Europe,
where the continent is actually now losing more than
one million people per year, and will lose a total of one-
sixth of its population by the year 2050.3
The problem is not overpopulation, it is population
maldistribution. Government policies, corruption, lack
of authentic economic development, and armed con-
flicts cause millions to flee from the countryside, where
they can make a living, and flock to the large cities,
where they often cannot find a job.
Some people have toured a large city such as Nairo-
bi or Manila and then proceeded to proclaim how bad
the overpopulation problem is — without ever taking
Contraception 7
a look at the vast empty areas of country! This is like

visiting a beehive and then saying that the world is full
of bees.
Contraception is not the answer to poverty and
population maldistribution. Authentic economic de-
velopment that allows people to make their livelihoods
in the countryside is the answer. This includes rural
electrification, improved roads, construction of schools
and medical clinics, clean drinking water, and improved
agricultural techniques and grain storage facilities.
If families need to limit the number of births, they
can turn to safe and effective forms of Natural Family
Planning (NFP). These have been taught to millions
of people, many of whom cannot read, by the Drs.
Billings and Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity,
among many others.
All that contraception does in the long run is turn
large poor families into small poor families. It does
nothing to further the goals and potential of a nation.
After all, two thousand years ago the population of the
world was less than one-fortieth of what it is now, and
Our Lord said then that “The poor you will always
have with you” (Matthew 26:11).
When the rich nations push contraception on the
“Third World,” they are engaging in the worst form
of imperialism. The rich countries are not particu-
larly interested in the standard of living in the “Third
World;” they just want less people to live in it. A secret
document written by the United States government in

1974, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for
U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, or NSSM-200, re-
vealed the real reason for population control programs:
“The U.S. economy will require large and increasing
amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from
less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. en-
hanced interest in the political, economic, and social
stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessen-
ing of population pressures through reduced birth rates
can increase the prospects for such stability, population
policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the
economic interests of the United States.”4
Family size should not be determined by the Unit-
ed Nations or by the rich nations of the West.
One good way to clarify your questioner’s attitude
towards contraception is to ask them if they would sup-
port it if the population of the world were only one
billion instead of nearly seven billion. If they answer
“yes,” then they are just trying to distract you with talk
about overpopulation. They obviously support con-
traception for other reasons having nothing to do with
the state of population in the world or in your country.
1. The United Nations Population Information Network (PO-

PIN) at http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp has more than 30
demographic indicators for every country and region in the
world over the period 1950 to 2050, including gross popula-
Contraception 9
tion, total fertility rate, population growth rate, and median

age. Be sure to use the “low variant” when searching, because
this is historically the most accurate prediction.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. The full text of NSSM-200, and an HLI analysis of the doc-

ument, is on Human Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
 See also: Evangelium Vitae, ¶16, 91, on Human Life Inter-

national’s Pro-Life CD Library.
4. Why doesn’t the Church change its teachings on

contraception?
Why doesn’t the Church change its teachings on
contraception to stay in step with modern practice
and with the public opinion polls, which show that
the majority of Catholics approve of its use?
Some people say that, since the Church has changed
its rules and regulations on other matters such as the
liturgy, female altar servers, and whether or not women
should wear head coverings at Mass, that it can also
change its teachings on contraception.
The fundamental question here is the limits of the
Church’s authority. The Church can indeed change its
own liturgy to a certain extent because this is within its
authority and is a human law.
When speaking of contraception and related issues,
we must understand that the Church is the guardian

of our interpretation of the Natural Law. Since the
Natural Law was given to us by God and is unchang-
ing, the Church does not have the authority to alter its
fundamental moral principles.
A favorite tactic of those who favor contraception
is to list the results of various public opinion polls and
surveys showing that 80 to 90 percent of Catholic cou-
ples in the West use or approve of contraception, or
that a large percentage of priests or theology professors
condone its use. Therefore, they argue, it must be all
right for Catholics to use contraception.
Sadly, it is true that most married Western couples
use contraception. But matters of Faith and morals can
never be put to a vote. The opinion of the majority is
not the valid guide for moral teachings. For all Chris-
tians, the will of God is the guide. When a couple uses
artificial contraception, they are directly interfering
with God’s design for their reproduction.
Catholics have a further guide: the teachings of
the Pope. It does not matter what dissident Catholic
priests or lay people say; even if they are in the minor-
ity, Catholics of good (not just convenient) conscience
must follow God and the Pope.
 See Chapter 21 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Interna-

tional’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Contraception,” for a more detailed
history and exposition of the Catholic Church’s teachings on it.
Contraception 11
5. Promoting contraception to reduce abortion

I know that the Church teaches that contraception
is sinful, but surely abortion is a much worse sin,
since it cuts off the life of a human being which has
already been created by God. Should we not sup‑
port contraception because it cuts down on abor‑
tion?
The idea that contraception helps cut down on
abortion is promoted by every pro-abortion and popu-
lation control group in the world. This is a concept
that seems to make sense, since contraception is indeed
designed to prevent pregnancies.
Of course, contraception would cut down on abor-
tions if only two conditions were met — if the con-
traception worked perfectly, and if human beings were
perfect as well.
These conditions will never be met, considering the
state of science and human nature.
When contraceptive manufacturers and promot-
ers talk about their products, they always refer to the
“method effectiveness rate,” which is how well contra-
ception works if it is used perfectly every time by per-
fectly healthy and perfectly attentive men and women.
A more useful and honest measure is the “user effective-
ness rate,” sometimes called the “real-world effective-
ness rate,” which includes human error.
The International Planned Parenthood Federa-
tion (IPPF) does more than any other organization to

spread abortion and contraception around the world.
Its first Medical Director, Malcolm Potts, said:
As has been pointed out, those who use contraceptives
are more likely than those who do not to resort to in-
duced abortion. ... The epidemiological evidence that
has been surveyed in this and preceding chapters points
to the fact that induced abortion services are most need-
ed by those adopting any form of fertility regulation. ...
No developed country has brought down its birth rate
without a considerable recourse to abortion, and it ap-
pears unlikely that developing countries can ever hope to
see any decline in their fertility without a massive resort
to induced abortion — legal or illegal.1
As contraception use goes up, so does the demand
for abortion, since contraception fails so often. In the
United States, where all forms of modern contracep-
tion have been widely available for nearly half a cen-
tury, nearly two-thirds of women obtaining abortions
were using contraception when they became pregnant.2
It is also interesting to note that more than one
hundred nations have legalized abortion to one extent
or another — and every single one of them first legal-
ized contraception, because the “family planners” and
population controllers know full well that contracep-
tion use and failure will lead to demands for legalized
abortion.
Contraception 13
Perhaps the most direct way that contraception

leads to abortion is that, when couples use it, they are
consciously and deliberately closing themselves off to
the gift of life. When their contraceptive method fails,
as it so often does, they see the resulting child not as
a gift from God, but as a “mistake,” and thus feel that
technology has let them down. They feel entitled to
an abortion, since they had already made an effort to
avoid having a child.
During this kind of discussion, we must absolutely
not lose sight of the fact that the Catholic Church has
always taught that the use of contraception is mortally
sinful. Indeed, those couples who use it are generally
unhappier than those couples who use Natural Fam-
ily Planning (NFP), and contracepting couples suffer a
much higher divorce rate than couples who use NFP.3
As it has been said so often, “God always forgives,
man sometimes forgives, but nature never forgives.”
1. Malcolm Potts, Peter Diggory, and John Peel. Abortion [Cam-

bridge University Press, 1977], pages 491, 496, 498 and 526.
2. Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. “Abortion Pa-

tients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use.”
Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1996, pages 140 to
143; Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Stanley K.
Henshaw. “Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having
Abortions in 2000-2001.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproduc-
tive Health, November/December 2002, pages 294 to 303.
3. The United States divorce rate among married couples us-

ing contraception is almost fifty percent. Several studies of
NFP users show a divorce rate of anywhere from one percent
to six percent [author’s personal survey of fourteen large NFP
teaching groups and leaders in the United States].
 See Chapter 21 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Inter-

national’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Contraception,” for a more
detailed scientific explanation of the various types of contra-
ception and for the history of the Catholic Church’s teachings
on it.
Table 1
First‑Year Pregnancy Rates for Women Using
Various Methods of Birth RegulationA
Method User
Method Used Failure Failure
Rate Rate
True Contraceptives
No Method Used 85% 85%
Spermicides Only B
18% 29%
Withdrawal 4% 27%
Cervical Cap with Spermicide
Women with Previous Children 26% 32%
Women with No Previous Children 9% 16%
Contraceptive Sponge
Women with Previous Children 20% 32%
Women with No Previous Children 9% 16%
Diaphragm with Spermicide 6% 16%
Contraception 15
Male Condom 2% 15%

Female Condom (“Reality”)C 5% 21%
Female Sexual Sterilization 0.5% 0.5%
Male Sexual Sterilization 0.1% 0.15%
A. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (18th

Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 2004]. Table
31‑1 on page 792.
B. Spermicides include foams, creams, gels, vaginal suppositories,
and vaginal films.
C. The female condom “Reality” is known as “Femy” in Spain
and “Femidom” in the rest of the world.
Method User
Method Used Failure Failure
Rate Rate
Abortifacients
Combined Pill and Minipill 0.3% 8%
Low Dose OC in Teenagers 3.0% 10%-15%
Evra Patch 0.3% 8%
NuvaRing 0.3% 8%
Intrauterine Devices (IUDs)
ParaGard (Copper T) 0.6% 0.8%
Mirena (LNG‑IUS) 0.1% 0.1%
Depo‑Provera Injectable 0.3% 3%
Norplant/Lunelle Implantable 0.1% 3%
RU‑486 Abortion Pill D
Natural Family Planning (NFP)E

Calendar Rhythm — 9%
Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) — 3%

Sympto‑Thermal Method (STM) — 2%
Post‑Ovulation Method — 1%
D. Annual rates are not applicable since RU-486 effectiveness is

measured on a per-use basis.
E. Eight major studies on the effectiveness of typical methods of

Natural Family Planning in the 1990s show an average user failure
rate of 2.8% [Bob Ryder and Hubert Campbell. “Natural Family
Planning in the 1990s.” The Lancet, July 22, 1995, page 233; Bob
Ryder. “‘Natural Family Planning:’ Effective Birth Control Sup-
ported by the Catholic Church.” British Medical Journal, 1993;
307:723‑726].
6. Depo-Provera — Abortifacient or contraceptive?

A woman in my parish is considering using De‑
po‑Provera. Her doctor told her that it is a contra‑
ceptive because it does not end the human life that
has already begun in her womb. What is the truth
regarding Depo‑Provera?
Depo-Provera is one of a class of steroid hormones
that employ powerful hormones to control the female
reproductive system. Others in this class include the
intra-uterine device (IUD), birth control pills or oral
contraceptives (OCs), the morning-after pill (MAP)
and emergency contraception (EC), and the implanta-
bles (Norplant, Jadelle and Implanon).
Depo‑Provera’s active ingredient is depot‑medroxy-
Contraception 17
progesterone acetate (DMPA), a synthetic form of the

natural hormone progesterone. Upjohn Pharmaceu-
ticals is the corporation that produces Depo-Provera.
According to Upjohn’s patient information pamphlet
on Depo‑Provera, the compound “inhibits the secre-
tion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicu-
lar maturation and ovulation and results in endome-
trial thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive
effect.”1
The pamphlet also says that Depo‑Provera:
• “[Has a] contraceptive effect produced by inhib-
iting the secretion of gonadotropins (FSH, LH),
which prevents follicular maturation and ovula-
tion;” and,
• “Suppresses the endometrium [the mucous
membrane lining the uterus] and changes cervi-
cal mucus.”
In other words, Upjohn acknowledges that De-
po‑Provera acts as an abortifacient.
The authoritative Contraceptive Technology con-
firms that Depo‑Provera has a three‑way mode of ac-
tion. It inhibits ovulation and thickens cervical mucus
(which are both contraceptive actions), but it also alters
the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) so that its
degree of receptivity to the blastocyst (very early devel-
oping human being) is significantly decreased.
According to Contraceptive Technology, “Other con-
traceptive actions include the development of a shallow

and atrophic (thinning) endometrium ...”
When Depo-Provera works by not allowing im-
plantation of the newly conceived individual, it is an
abortifacient.2
1. Patient information brochure. “Now Available in the U.S.:

Depo Provera Contraceptive Injection.” Upjohn Pharmaceu-
tical Company, December 1992.
2. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (18th

Revised Edition) [New York: Ardent Media, Inc.], 2004.
Chapter 20, “Depo Provera Injections, Implants, and Proges-
tin Only Pills (Minipills),” pages 461 to 494.
7. Sterilization to protect the mother’s health

A 35‑year‑old woman in my parish has six children
and is in very poor health. Her doctor has recom‑
mended that she get her tubes tied and had told her
that another pregnancy may well endanger her life.
Should I advise her that she may proceed with the
sterilization because her children need her?
Unless the woman is suffering from a pernicious
disease that directly affects her reproductive organs,
there is no known medical condition that is made worse
by pregnancy. Of course, pregnancy can be made more
dangerous and challenging if a woman does not take
clinical precautions for pre-existing conditions.
Contraception 19
This fact, that pregnancy does not endanger health,

has been acknowledged by medical professionals since
as early as 1955:
• Reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson said
in 1990 that “The situation where the mother’s
life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy
is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state
of modern medicine, we can now manage any
pregnant woman with any medical affliction
successfully, to the natural conclusion of the
pregnancy: the birth of a healthy child.”1
• The “Father of Fetology,” Hymie Gordon, M.D.,
said that “In more than 25 years now of medical
practice, I have come to learn that if a woman
is healthy enough to become pregnant, she is
healthy enough to complete the term — in spite
of heart disease, liver disease, almost any disease.
As far as I’m concerned, there are no medical
indications for terminating a pregnancy.”2
• Dr. Jasper Williams, Jr., of the Bernard Hospi-
tal in Chicago, Past President of the National
Medical Association, has said that “Doctors now
have the tools and the knowledge with which
to work so that they can handle almost any dis-
ease a patient may have, whether that patient is
pregnant or not, and without interrupting the
pregnancy.”3
• Former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr.

C. Everett Koop, said that “The life‑of‑the‑moth-
er argument surfaces in every debate concerning
abortion. The fact of the matter is that abortion
as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so
rare as to be non‑existent.”4
A doctor who recommends sterilization is often
mindful of malpractice litigation. For many OB-
GYNs, the ideal situation from a standpoint of finan-
cial risk is to have pregnancies only among young and
healthy patients, and this factor often motivates medi-
cal decisions.
The sterilization of a woman (or man) for the pur-
pose of rendering the person sterile in the absence of
a life-threatening disease that infects the reproductive
organs in question is always gravely sinful.
The principle of the “double effect,” which is more
completely described under Question 22, applies to
sexual sterilization. The principle of the twofold, or
double effect, states that it is morally allowable to per-
form an action that will produce both good and bad ef-
fects as long as the following five conditions are all met:
a. The object of the action to be performed must
be good in itself or at least morally neutral.
b. The good effect must not come about as a re-
sult of the evil effect, but must come directly
from the action itself.
Contraception 21
c. The evil effect must not be desired in itself but

only permitted.
d. There must be a sufficiently grave reason for
permitting the evil effect to occur.
e. There is no other alternative available to solve
the problem.
As an example, if a woman who is not pregnant
must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously
cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization,
but it is not a sinful act (provided the above conditions
are met).
However, if the purpose of the operation is not to
heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then
that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.5
If a married couple has a serious reason to avoid
pregnancy, they may use the post-ovulation method
of Natural Family Planning, which allows marital re-
lations during the completely infertile portion of the
cycle, and which has a 99 percent annual pregnancy
avoidance rate.
1. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. Written statement to the Idaho

House of Representatives’ State Affairs Committee, 16 Febru-
ary 1990.
2. Address of October 15, 1974.
3. Address of October 19, 1981.
4. Everett Koop, M.D. The Right to Live, the Right to Die [To-
ronto, Canada: Life Cycle Books], 1991, page 61.
5. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae (¶14), July 25, 1968;
and Pope Pius XII, “Allocution to Midwives,” (¶27), October
29, 1951.
 See Chapter 3 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internation-
al’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Health Exceptions for Abortion,”
for a more detailed theological and scientific explanation of
the “double effect” and of rape, incest, eugenics and mother’s
health exceptions for abortion.
8. Sterilization in the later years

A couple in my parish are in their early forties. They
have five children. Three years ago, they had a dis‑
abled child, and want to know if one of them can be
sterilized because they believe that the probability
of having another disabled child is high at this time
in their lives.
Generally, when there is no family history, the ac-
tual risk of having a baby with a birth defect is actually
quite low, as shown below.
Risk of Fetal Birth Defects

According to the Mother’s Age
Total Risk of All % of
Age of Risk of Down’s Genetic Abnor‑ Healthy
Mother SyndromeA malitiesB Babies
15 0.03% (1 of 3,333) 0.22% (1 of 455) 99.78%
20 0.05% (1 of 1,867) 0.33% (1 of 306) 99.67%
25 0.08% (1 of 1,296) 0.47% (1 of 213) 99.53%
Contraception 23
30 0.11% (1 of 900) 0.68% (1 of 148) 99.32%

35 0.28% (1 of 360) 1.69% (1 of 59) 98.31%
40 0.92% (1 of 109) 5.61% (1 of 18) 94.39%
45 1.10% (1 of 91) 6.71% (1 of 15) 93.29%
A. Hippocrates Magazine, May/June 1988, pages 68 and 69, and

March 21, 1980 letter from Hymie Gordon, M.D., Chair-
man, Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, to
Nona Aguilar.
B. Includes incidence of Down’s Syndrome, alpha anti‑trypsin
enzyme deficiency, alpha thalassemia, beta thalassemia (Cool-
ey’s anemia), cystic fibrosis, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy,
fragile “X” syndrome, hemophilia, anencephaly, spina bifida,
polycystic kidney disease, sex chromosome abnormalities,
sickle cell anemia, Tay‑Sachs disease, trisomy 13 (Patau Syn-
drome) and trisomy 18 (Edwards Syndrome).
If there is an immediate family history of a par-

ticular birth defect, especially that of a previous child,
the probability of the same birth defect occurring in
subsequent children is sometimes much higher than
shown above. However, this depends on the specific
condition.
It is an unfortunate if understandable fact that
many OB-GYNs like to play it safe, because their mal-
practice insurance premiums are so high. This means
that they often over-state the risk of fetal birth defects,
especially to older couples.
The Catholic Church has always taught that mu-
tilation of the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, is
gravely sinful. The Church condemns sexual steriliza-

tion for the same reason that it would oppose a person
cutting off his own thumbs.
In his address to the Congress of Urology on Octo-
ber 8, 1953, Pope Pius XII outlined the specific condi-
tions under which sterilization (or any bodily mutila-
tion, for that matter) may be performed:
Three things condition the moral permission of a surgi-

cal operation requiring an anatomical or functional mu-
tilation:
(1) that the preservation or functioning of a particular

organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat
to the complete organism (this is the “principle of total-
ity”);
(2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least no-

tably diminished, except by the amputation in question
and that its efficacy is well assured; and
(3) that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative

effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will
be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of dam-
age to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc.
(As far as sterilization is concerned), the conditions

which would justify disposing of a part in favor of the
whole in virtue of the principle of totality are lacking. It
Contraception 25
is not therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy

oviducts if the life or (physical) health of the mother is
not threatened by their continued existence.
Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae

(¶14) held sterilization and abortion to be equally con-
demned:
... the direct interruption of the generative process al-
ready begun, and, above all, directly willed and pro-
cured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to
be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the
Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization,
whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or
of the woman.
 See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶2399.

 Also see Chapter 3 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Inter-
national’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Health Exceptions for Abor-
tion,” for a more detailed theological and scientific explana-
tion of rape, incest, eugenics and mother’s health exceptions
for abortion, contraception and sterilization.
9. Conscience and contraception

One of my women parishioners has a master’s degree
in theology. She has told me that she has studied
the topic of contraception in great depth, including
Church teachings on the matter. She says that, after
this study, her conscience tells her that she can use
birth control in good faith. I know that the Catho‑
lic Church teaches that contraception is mortally
sinful, but why is it wrong?
The Catholic Church teaches that certain actions
are “intrinsically evil.” This means that no man-made
(or even Church-made) law can make them moral, and
no government, organization or person can proclaim
such actions to be “good,” no matter how many com-
plicated rationalizations they might offer. Indulging
in evil, even allegedly in the service of the good, always
leads to more evil, and is illicit.
Those who claim that their “conscience” allows
them to do something sinful completely misunder-
stand the role of the human conscience, which is to
witness to the moral law, not to be the source of mo-
rality. In other words, the conscience is a pupil, not
a teacher. People who use “conscience” to justify an
intrinsically evil act are saying in essence non serviam,
or “I will not serve.”
Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of
Denver clearly outlined the role of conscience in his
1998 pastoral letter Of Human Life:
Catholics, like all people, are always obligated to follow

their consciences — on birth control and every other
matter. But that’s not where the problem lies. The prob-
Contraception 27
lem lies in the formation of one’s conscience. A conscien-

tious person seeks to do good and avoid evil. ...
Truth is objective. In other words, it’s real, is indepen-

dent of us, and exists whether we like it or not. There-
fore, conscience can’t invent right and wrong. Rather,
conscience is called to discover the truth of right and
wrong, and then to submit personal judgments to the truth
once it is found. Church teaching on the regulation of
births, like all her moral teachings, is a sure guide for
forming our consciences according to the truth. For we
have the certainty of faith, as Vatican II reminds us, that
the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and mor-
als are “not the mere word of men, but truly the word of
God” (Lumen Gentium, ¶12).
Too often, we use “conscience” as a synonym for private

preference, a kind of pious alibi for doing what we want
or taking the easy road. We only end up by hurting oth-
ers and ourselves (emphasis in the original).
People who say that they can make up their own

minds regarding sexual morality do not have informed
consciences — they have malformed consciences. What
they are really saying is, “If I feel comfortable with this
act, then it is all right.” Becoming comfortable with sin
is the beginning of a deadly cancer of the soul and leads
directly to moral relativism, which is making up our
own set of rules as we go along. The Catechism tells us
that “The education of conscience is indispensable for

human beings who are subjected to negative influences
and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and
to reject authoritative teachings” (¶1783).
The Catholic Church has always taught that con-
traception is mortally sinful, because it not only divides
sperm from egg, but husband from wife and both from
God. In fact, every Protestant denomination on Earth
taught that contraception was gravely sinful until the
Anglican’s Lambeth Conference of 1930. The damage
wrought by contraception can be seen by the fact that
every mainline Protestant denomination now accepts
birth control — and every one of them is dying out.
Contraception is immoral from a variety of secular
points of view as well, because it aggressively erodes so-
ciety, marriage and family, and respect for human life:
1. Contraception fails frequently — more than
two million times each year in the United States
alone. Since the parents were trying to avoid a
child in the first place, they often feel entitled
to have an abortion, since they see themselves
as victims of failed technology. Nearly two-
thirds of the women obtaining abortions in
the USA were using contraception when they
conceived.1 This is the most direct way that
contraception leads to abortion.
2. Contraception makes the wife constantly avail-
Contraception 29
able to the husband sexually, thereby bypass-

ing other channels of communication. Many
studies have shown that those married couples
using contraception have a divorce rate close to
fifty percent, while couples using Natural Fam-
ily Planning (NFP) have a divorce rate of about
three percent.2
1. Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. “Abortion Patients

1994‑1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use.” Family
Planning Perspectives, July/August 1996, pages 140 to 143; Ra-
chel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Stanley K. Henshaw.
“Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions
in 2000‑2001.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,
November/December 2002, pages 294 to 303.
2. United States Census Bureau. Reference Book and Guide to
Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office], 2008 Edition. Ta-
ble 1302, “Marriage and Divorce Rates, by Country: 1990 to
2005.” The entire Statistical Abstract is on-line at www.census.
gov/compendia/statab/. For divorce rates among NFP us-
ers: Author’s survey of 14 major national U.S. NFP teaching
groups and leaders. The average number is about three percent
(the range is from 1 percent to 6 percent).
 For further reading on this topic, see the following, which are
all on Human Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library; (1)
Gaudium et Spes, ¶16‑17, 50; (2) Veritatis Splendor, ¶61‑62;
and (3)The Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1751, 1778,
1780, 1783, 1790 and 2370.
10. Contraception for teens “doing it anyway”

I am sorry to say that many of the young people in
my parish have little or no self‑discipline. They fol‑
low the examples of their peers and even their par‑
ents in many cases, and engage in various types of
sexual activity freely. Since it would be tragic for
a young girl to face having a child or, worse yet, an
abortion, can we priests look the other way if they
use contraception? After all, they are going to en‑
gage in sex anyway, so they might as well be safe.
All people — and especially young people — live
up to our expectations for them.
Unfortunately, they also live down to our expecta-
tions for them. They look to older people for guidance
and example, whether or not they are willing to admit
it. If we treat them as if they are no better than animals
and simply assume that they are going to fornicate any-
way and throw condoms at them, then they are going
to have sex. It is as simple as that.
Often, people say that giving birth control to teen-
agers in schools or clinics will not lead to sexual behav-
ior. This is as illogical as saying if we give them cars, it
will not lead to driving behavior.
If we emphasize that we have high expectations for
young people, that their bodies are temples of the Holy
Spirit, and that we know that they will make the right
decisions, they will be much more likely to abstain
Contraception 31
from sex and avoid all of the terrible worries and prob-
lems that accompany premarital sexual activity.
If we expect little of our young people, then that is
what they will give us. If we expect much of them, they
will give us much.
Parents have more influence on their children than
religion, their friends, or school. Unfortunately, in to-
day’s world, parents often give their children bad exam-
ple. As a rule, contracepting parents beget fornicating
teenagers.
The Catholic Church is suffering from the impacts
of an uncatechized generation, and we must win our
children back from a world whose paramount message
is, “If it feels good, do it.” This huge task may very well
take a generation or more, but are not the souls of mil-
lions worth the trouble? We must never despair.
A practical, rather than a religious, appeal usually
works best with teenagers because many of them really
think that they can enjoy life now and worry about
religion and the disposition of their souls decades later
in their lives.
The best way to reach young people is to train oth-
er young people in chastity, and then have them teach
their friends at seminars and other events.
One effective way of turning young people away
from premarital sex, abortion and contraception is to
show them how engaging in such activities clutters up
their minds with burdensome and oppressive worries.
Teenagers who are chaste do not have the following

very urgent worries:
• “Unwanted” pregnancy and single motherhood;
• Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and AIDS;
• Loss of their self‑respect;
• Loss of their reputation;
• Worrying about what their parents will think;
• The terrible side-effects of contraception and
abortifacients;
• Where to raise money for an abortion, and its
severe physical and emotional impacts;
• Raising children alone in poverty;
• Difficulty in finding a good husband or wife;
and, most importantly,
• Fear of loss of their soul!
By contrast, teenagers who are chaste suffer from
none of these terrible troubles and are free to turn their
eyes towards higher things — their education, their fu-
ture, and God.
11. Natural Family Planning and a drunken husband

A young married woman in my parish wants to use
Natural Family Planning, but her husband frequent‑
ly gets drunk and demands sexual relations during
her fertile period. She has had three children in a
little over three years and is having a terrible time
Contraception 33
taking care of her family without his help. May she

use a barrier method of contraception during her
fertile times?
Does anyone really think that, if the wife makes
herself continually sexually available to such an irre-
sponsible husband, her situation is going to improve?
All she is doing is giving in to his despicable behavior
and enabling him to continue it. This is not the way to
treat a bully or a drunk.
Drunkenness is a mortal sin, and we do not use one
mortal sin to cover up another. If there is any situation
that demands intervention from the priest and the peo-
ple of a parish, this is it. Either you must speak firmly
to this husband yourself, or his friends or other Catholic
men must speak to him (see Matthew 18:15-17). This is
certainly a matter of justice — not only for the wife and
her children, but for the man as well. Simply allowing
him to continue his behavior will lead to untold misery,
and, most likely, the eventual breakup of the family. The
community and the Church must come to the aid of
this family, but must be very careful to adhere to the
principles of charity and confidentiality.
If meetings with the husband do not work, it may
be necessary to remove the husband (for treatment) or
the wife and children from the situation. This is where
the resources of a close-knit parish can be brought to
bear in support of the victims of such behavior.
The idea here is to modify the husband’s behavior,

not to enable it to continue. The use of contraception
will only make matters worse. Our job is to bring the
husband back to God, not to push the wife away from
Him.
12. The “morning-after pill” and rape

A local Catholic hospital gives the “morning-after
pill” (Plan B) to women who have been raped. Is
this policy in line with Catholic teachings?
Barr Pharmaceuticals manufactures the “Plan B”
pills, and its patient information pamphlet states that
“This product works mainly by preventing ovulation
(egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a re-
leased egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of
a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).”
If a drug works by preventing the attachment of a
newly conceived human being to the wall of the uterus,
it is acting as an abortifacient.
This fact led to the Pontifical Academy for Life is-
suing an October 2000 statement that stated “... from
the ethical standpoint, the same absolute unlawfulness
of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing,
prescribing and taking the morning‑after pill. All who,
whether sharing the intention or not, directly co‑op-
erate with this procedure, are also morally responsible
for it.”1
Contraception 35
Therefore, we should treat the abortifacient Plan

B “morning-after pill” and so-called “emergency con-
traception” in the same manner as we would handle
Depo-Provera, the birth control pill (OC), Norplant
and the intrauterine device (IUD). All of these work
to end the life of the early developing human being and
are therefore inadmissible.
1. Pontifical Academy for Life. “Statement on the So-Called

‘Morning-After Pill’,” October 31, 2000. This document is
available on Human Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
13. “Imposing my values” regarding contraception

One of my parishioners said that, as a priest, I should
preach on the Gospel and not impose my values on
my congregation regarding Catholic teachings on
contraception and other issues regarding human
sexuality. What should I say to her?
Priests who care about the state of the souls of their
parishioners often find it difficult to preach against the
galaxy of sexual mortal sins that include fornication,
homosexual acts, adultery, contraception, sterilization,
masturbation, the use of pornography and divorce.
However, it is safe to say that these sexual sins ac-
count for the loss of more souls than any other type of
sin. Because this is so, it is your sacred duty as a priest
to talk about values.
Let us make one thing clear. Although they cer-

tainly are your values (as they should be), they are, more
importantly, the eternal values of Jesus Christ, of His
Church, and of the Holy Bible.
Many priests, especially in the West, have decided
not to “rock the boat,” and so they do not talk about
such touchy subjects. Certainly if the priest avoids
speaking of these things, his congregation will feel
much more comfortable — but is he doing his job?
He must ask himself what obstacles he is placing in
the way of the Devil, who wants nothing more than a
silent Church.
When a person angrily tells you not to “impose
your values” on a particular subject, you have obvi-
ously struck a nerve. Perhaps you can offer to meet
with the person to find out why he or she reacted in
such a negative fashion. This often leads to healing and
repentance.
 For a large selection of materials that assist priests in preaching

fearlessly against abortion and other evils, visit the Web site of
Priests for Life at www.priestsforlife.org.
14. Natural Family Planning as “Catholic birth

control”
I was listening to a radio debate between a Catho‑
lic man and a woman who works for a family plan‑
ning organization. She claimed that Natural Family
Contraception 37
Planning as approved by the Church is just a form of

“Catholic birth control.” Is she right on this point?
The difference between artificial contraception and
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is all in the attitude
of the husband and wife. When a couple contracepts,
they say to God “we will try to frustrate Your will if
it is to create a child and will take action to negate it
(through abortion) if You do create a child.”
When a couple uses NFP, they instead say “we will
allow every one of our marital acts to be open to Your
will, regardless of whether the probability of concep-
tion is likely or remote, and will respect Your awesome
gift of fertility in exactly the form You gave it to us.”
In Familiaris Consortio (¶32), Pope John Paul
II explained that the fundamental difference between
contraception and NFP lies in the worldview of the
people involved:
... theological reflection is able to perceive and is called
to study further the difference, both anthropological
and moral, between contraception and recourse to the
rhythm of the cycle: It is a difference which is much
wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which in-
volves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of
the human person and of human sexuality. The choice
of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of
the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting
dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and
self‑control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dia-

logue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal
character of conjugal communion and to live a personal
love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context, the
couple comes to experience how conjugal communion
is enriched with those values of tenderness and affec-
tion which constitute the inner soul of human sexual-
ity, in its physical dimension also. In this way, sexuality
is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human
dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by
breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at
God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction
of nature and person. (emphasis in the original)
Humanae Vitae (¶16) explains that the difference

between the practice of contraception and Natural
Family Planning lies in the fact that NFP cooperates
with the human reproductive system as God designed
it, whereas contraception attempts to overcome and
subdue it:
The Church is coherent with herself when she considers

recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the
same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use
of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such
use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and
serious. In reality, there are essential differences between
the two cases; in the former, the married couple makes
Contraception 39
legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they

impede the development of natural processes. It is true
that, in the one and the other case, the married couple
are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children
for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring
will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former
case are they able to renounce the use of the marital act
in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation
is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund
periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their
mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly
and integrally honest love.
15. Contraception and the very poor family

There is a very poor married couple in my urban
parish who can just barely make ends meet from
month to month although they both work, he as a
part-time taxi driver and she doing laundry. I have
been to their home, which is really nothing more
than a rude shack with a dirt floor. They have no
children and, in my opinion, will not be able to pro‑
vide for a child for years, if ever. How can I advise
them?
The Catholic Church has always allowed the use
of infertile periods to space children for authentically
serious reasons. Pope Paul VI said in his great encyclical
Humanae Vitae (¶10, 16) that:
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social

conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by
the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous
family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and
with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time
being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth
... If, then, there are serious motives to space out births,
which derive from the physical or psychological condi-
tions of husband and wife, or from external conditions,
the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account
the natural rhythms immanent in the generative func-
tions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only,
and in this way to regulate birth without offending the
moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
Some people who do not understand Catholic

teachings give the impression that the Church wants
couples to produce as many children as is physically
possible, but this is not true. The Church asks married
couples to always remain open to the gift of life, but
never demands the impossible from them.
The truthful answer to the question of what con-
stitutes a truly serious impediment to having more
(or any) children is rooted in honesty and a properly
formed conscience. Some people who lack the virtues
of fortitude and self‑sacrifice interpret any and all rea-
sons as “serious.”
Contraception 41
True followers of Christ can be more informed in

their assessments of their own personal situations in
light of the natural moral law and Church teaching,
particularly with the guidance of a priest who fully un-
derstands the Church’s teachings on sexual morality.
Chapter 2
Abortion
16. Fatal birth defects and abortion
A couple in my parish disclosed to me that they had
prenatal testing and found that their unborn child
is a boy with Trisomy 18. This means that he will
die shortly after birth. Would it be allowable for the
wife to have an abortion in this most extreme case,
rather than bring a baby to birth who is only go‑
ing to die hours later anyway, and cause his family
much pain and suffering?
Without question this is a tragic and extreme case.
However, we must not let our emotions run away
with us. As Catholics, we believe that the unborn child
is a human being regardless of his or her physical or
mental condition. And we also believe that having a
handicap — even a serious handicap — does not make
a human being any less human regardless of his or her
physical or mental condition. This means that abor-
tion for birth defects, or eugenics, can never be justi-
fied. When a couple finds out that their child will be
handicapped, this naturally produces a sense of loss or
42
Abortion 43
grief initially. However, the family can move towards

acceptance if they receive help from others who have
walked this path, and if they are supported with prayer
and material help.
We must stand back for a moment and ask our-
selves which is the most loving way to deal with this
situation: To allow the child to die in the arms of his
parents or at the hands of the abortionist’s merciless,
razor-sharp surgical instruments?
Our world celebrates perfection and beauty. We
constantly see images of beautiful women and hand-
some men in magazines, in the movies, and on televi-
sion. We are losing our ability to see the loveliness in
the face of a handicapped child who may not meet our
standards of beauty. To kill someone because he or she
is less than perfect is to reject the battered and marred
face of Christ as well. He was most beautiful when He
suffered for us; parents are most beautiful when they
suffer and sacrifice for the sake of their handicapped
child.
If the parents of an unborn child wanted him or her
until they found out that the child was handicapped,
they would be practicing pure and simple discrimina-
tion. Discrimination on the basis of physical or mental
handicap is incompatible with Catholic teaching, be-
cause it consists of bias against a person because he or
she is different from us. In the eyes of God, all of us are
equal because of our very humanity.
To judge a person by his or her handicaps is to see

that person as a material good, not as a person with
intrinsic worth. Our Lord Jesus Christ embraced the
poor, the handicapped, the deformed, the diseased. If
we are to follow His example, we must do the same.
From a practical point of view, this kind of eugen-
icist thinking sends a hideous message to other chil-
dren, especially if they are handicapped. They will soon
deduce that they would have been discarded (or still
might be) if they did not measure up to their parent’s
standards of perfection.
Society in general is finding it easier and easier to
dispose of the handicapped. Thirty years ago, we cared
for those weaker than ourselves. Now, ninety percent
of unborn Down’s Syndrome children are aborted, and
genetic testing is leading to more and more eugenic
abortion for smaller and less important handicaps,
such as deafness. In fact, more than a million babies
worldwide are aborted each year because of the “handi-
cap” of being female!
17. Rape, incest and abortion

(17a) We recently had a terrible tragedy in our par‑
ish. An 18-year-old girl was brutally beaten up and
raped, and she became pregnant. Her family mem‑
bers are heavily pressuring her to have an abortion,
and they are telling me to stay out of their business.
Abortion 45
So far, the girl is resisting their pressure. How can I

help her defend her baby’s life?
(17b) A 15‑year‑old girl in my parish told me that
she is pregnant by her uncle, who is a notorious
drunkard and has been molesting her for some time.
May I counsel her to have an abortion to avoid caus‑
ing the family further pain and embarrassment?
There is no doubt that a woman or girl who has
been raped or who has been the victim of incest has
been terribly violated, and we should all show sympa-
thy towards her.
But let us be realistic for a moment. The relatives
and friends of these two girls are going to claim that
they are the people who are being realistic. They think
that abortion will simply make the “problem” go away.
However, we must look at the facts. Abortion does
not “unrape” a woman or take away the trauma of in-
cest; it merely heaps one atrocity on top of another.
The problem here is not the baby, but a lack of love
and support for the young woman or girl. If she has
the abortion, her relatives will most likely consider the
problem “solved,” but the victim will then be suffer-
ing from both the original crime and the killing of her
preborn child.
In fact, in many cases of incest, the molester uses
abortion as the ideal cover-up for his heinous activi-
ties. Abortion clinics, whether they are legal or illegal,

rarely ask questions because they are businesses in op-
eration for one purpose and one purpose only — to
make as much money as possible. Once the girl who
is the victim of incest has an abortion, she is victimized
yet again.
One way to approach this problem is to imagine
thoroughly examining two newborn babies lying side
by side — one who was conceived within a loving mar-
riage and one who was conceived as the result of a vio-
lent rape or repeated molestation by a family member.
Which may we consider to be more human?
If these two babies were laid side by side, could
anyone identify the one who was conceived by rape or
incest?
Of course not!
Then why select one baby for extinction based sole-
ly upon the circumstances of his or her conception?
Virtually everyone would oppose the death penalty
for a guilty rapist, no matter how violent he is, or for
the sexual molester of children.
Why, then, do some people advocate the death
penalty (abortion) for his innocent child?
The solution to this problem is to ensure that the
rape or incest does not happen again. We must lock up
the rapists and the molesters and must give the victim
the physical, emotional and spiritual support she needs
to live a normal life.
Abortion 47

tional’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Health Exceptions for Abor-
tion,” for a more detailed theological and scientific explana-
tion of rape, incest, eugenics and mother’s health exceptions
for abortion.
18. Young girls and secret abortions

I overheard a young unmarried girl in my parish
tell one of her friends that she is pregnant and has
scheduled an abortion for a week from now. As a
priest, what are my responsibilities in this case?
The Catholic Church has taught throughout its
history that the preborn child is a full member of the
human family. This means that you should act as if the
life of a two-year-old child is in immediate danger.
As with any other situation where a life is hanging
in the balance, this calls for a “drop everything” theol-
ogy.
Begin by contacting the girl herself and attempt to
dissuade her from aborting her child. She will prob-
ably be in a panic situation and is having trouble mak-
ing a wise decision. She sees a positive pregnancy test
as a huge loss of control of both her life and her self-
image. She will make whatever choice she thinks will
most quickly return her life to normal. Often, she sees
carrying the baby to term as her least desirable op-
tion, because it will completely disrupt her plans for
her life. She might see adoption as unacceptable, be-

cause it means going through the entire pregnancy and
then giving up the baby, which is also very disruptive.
To a young girl in a panic situation, abortion is often
perceived as the “least bad” solution to her immediate
problems, since she mistakes it as a quick “eraser” of
her pregnancy.
You must help her see her options in their true
light. Abortion is not just a quick surgical procedure
— it goes on and on forever, whereas life-giving op-
tions bring hope, personal growth and peace of mind.
You can emphasize the humanity of the unborn
child and the damage that abortion inevitably does,
especially to young girls. Show her what material re-
sources are available to help her, and that it is never
necessary to abort with such help. Your parish should
stand ready to help such girls and women with food,
clothing, housing and counseling if necessary, and
many times your local community will have a crisis
pregnancy center (CPC) that can also help.
If she does not respond, you should contact those
close to her, in particular the father of the baby and the
girl’s parents. If these people are not supportive of the
girl, other women in the parish who have experience in
crisis or other counseling might step in. The problem
in most cases is simply a lack of support for a girl who
chooses life. Most young girls who abort believe that
they simply have no other choice.
Abortion 49
This is one instance where the law may assist you

in your efforts. If the girl is young, some jurisdictions
require the consent or knowledge of the girl’s parents or
the father of her baby.
If a woman or girl is determined to go ahead with
the procedure, she at least has the right to be fore-
warned that “safe” abortion is anything but safe. The
abortion industry attracts the most incompetent and
unscrupulous doctors and clinic staff.1 Women die by
the hundreds each year in nations with loose abortion
laws, and most of these deaths are never reported. If
abortion is illegal in your country, the danger is even
greater to the life of the girl considering abortion. A
direct appeal to her concern for her own life might be
effective.
It is important to remember that you are fighting
for the life of a child of God who has as much right
to live as anyone else, regardless of what the senseless
laws of man dictate. You may be mocked by the press,
scolded by the court system, and perhaps even vilified
by some of your brother priests, but fighting for the
lives and souls of the helpless is one of the highest call-
ings a person — especially a priest — could ever have.
1. For useful evidence of this statement, see http://www.abor-

tionviolence.org.
19. Unrepentant abortion and Holy Communion

A woman in my parish told me that she had an abor‑
tion, but that it was not a sin for her since her family
situation was so difficult at the time. She approach‑
es the Communion rail each Sunday. Should I give
her Communion?
This is a complex and difficult question for priests
to deal with. A pastoral and caring attitude is abso-
lutely essential in such cases, since many people have
become habitual in their use of a malformed or un-
informed conscience. To begin with, you need to in-
struct the woman that abortion is a mortal sin unless
she was forced into it or did not know it was a mor-
tal sin. This is not just your opinion, but the eternal
and unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. It
is a mortal sin regardless of personal or family circum-
stance. If she obstinately refuses your counsel and is
determined to continue receiving Communion, she is
willingly and consciously committing the terrible sin of
sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament — something
you simply cannot permit.
By her example, this woman is also leading others
into an occasion of sin. If she has informed you that she
is receiving Communion despite knowing that abortion
is a mortal sin, then doubtlessly she has told others in
the parish as well. She is therefore giving a gravely bad
example by receiving the Blessed Sacrament in such a
Abortion 51
state. If you continue giving her Communion you will

also be giving bad example, and people will treat the
Sacrament with much less respect in your parish as a
result. They will also begin to believe that abortion is
not such a serious sin if there are no repercussions for
practicing or promoting it.
In order to be fair to this woman, you should warn
her beforehand that receiving the Holy Eucharist in a
state of mortal sin is simply unacceptable. She may
cause discord and she may denounce you, but be as-
sured that your courageous example will strengthen the
faith of many more people in the parish. The woman
may leave your parish. She may even leave the Church
and look for a more accommodating denomination,
but these are her decisions, and she must bear the con-
sequences.
This woman is probably not aware that she has au-
tomatically excommunicated herself through the act
of abortion and is therefore cut off from the body of
Christ. Canon Law Number 1398 states in Latin and
English:
Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in

excommunicationem, latae sententiae, incurrat.
“Those who successfully abort a living human

fetus bring on themselves automatic excommunica-
tion.”
Abortum procurat means anyone who works to kill

a human fetus in any manner at all. This may be the
boyfriend or husband who drives the woman to the
abortion clinic, pays for the abortion in full or in part,
or even advises that abortion may be an option in her
case.
Latae sententiae means that the person brings auto-
matic excommunication upon herself by her act. No
solemn pronouncement need be made by the Church
or a Bishop or priest, and no one else need even know
about the abortion. For automatic excommunica-
tion to take place, the woman must know that she is
pregnant and must freely choose abortion. At the mo-
ment the woman’s child dies, she is cut off from all the
Sacraments completely, and cannot return unless she
sincerely repents and makes a good Confession. This
sanction also applies to the abortionist, attending nurse
or counselor, and anyone else who assists in the abor-
tion.
Effectu secuto means that the excommunication
takes place only if the abortion is completed.
As a priest, you may have the faculties to lift the
excommunication (the granting of such faculty varies
from diocese to diocese). You may do so in the confes-
sional if you have the faculties.
In the long run, fulfilling your duty as a teacher
and as a shepherd of souls in a forthright and diligent
way will lead to the salvation of many more souls than
Abortion 53
taking a permissive attitude towards such matters.

Your brave example in defending the great goods of the
Blessed Sacrament and human life will bear great fruit,
both in your own life and in the lives of others. To al-
low sacrilege to continue unchallenged will inevitably
lead to moral rot spreading in your parish. Every day it
is allowed to exist, it will be more difficult to eradicate.
Remember the wise words of Pope St. Felix III:
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; not to defend
truth is to suppress it.”
20. Should only women speak about abortion?

After I mentioned abortion in a homily, one of my
women parishioners surprised me by telling me
that, since I am a man, I have no right to preach on
abortion or pregnancy because I will never experi‑
ence them. I must admit I was at a loss for words.
How can I respond to a statement like this?
A person’s sex is irrelevant to truth. The validity
and truth of an argument has nothing whatsoever to
do with a person’s sex, age, race, or any other variable.
If a statement or argument is true, then it is true — it
matters not who is saying it!
Some pro‑abortion women use this slogan in an at-
tempt to intimidate men into giving up their most ba-
sic free speech rights. But these people are being hypo-
crites, since they never object when a man speaks out
for abortion rights. After all, it was seven old men who
imposed abortion on demand on the United States,
and we did not hear feminists reject the ruling!
Feminists often use the tired phrase, “If men could
get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” In oth-
er words, since men can’t get pregnant, they should not
be allowed to speak about matters involving pregnancy.
So let us take this grossly flawed “logic” a bit fur-
ther:
• Only South African blacks should have been able
to speak out about apartheid, because only they
were adversely affected by it.
• Only Jews should be allowed to speak out about
the Holocaust, Nazis, and anti‑Semitism, because
only they are directly affected by it.
• Only men should be allowed to talk about major
league baseball, football, and basketball, because
only they are directly involved in playing the games.
• Only people on death row, and their immediate
relatives, should speak about capital punishment,
because only they are directly affected by the death
penalty.
• Since only men fight in wars, only men should be
allowed to hold an opinion on it (if the pro-abor-
tionist asserts that women die in wars as well, tell
them that half of those who die in abortions are
little unborn women).
Abortion 55
Now you begin to see how silly and illogical the

“women only” argument really is.
If pro‑abortionists wish to be consistent in apply-
ing this principle, we can say that only those persons of
either sex who are fertile and not on any kind of birth
control should be able to speak out either for or against
abortion.
In summary, laws of most countries guarantee that
we can speak out publicly for or against anything —
despite the wishes of those who would dearly love to
stamp out all viewpoints that they do not agree with.
The very definition of “oppression” is an attempt to
strip a group of people of their voice. This means that
any pro‑abortionist who is trying to divest men of their
right to speak out against abortion is trying to oppress
men.
21. “Thousands of women” dying of illegal abortions

Abortion is illegal in my country. Lately, I have seen
several articles and letters in our national newspa‑
pers calling for the legalization of abortion because
hundreds of women are dying every year at the
hands of back‑alley quacks. Shouldn’t we legalize
abortion to save the lives of these women?
This is without doubt the number one tactic pro-
abortionists have used to legalize abortion in dozens of
countries around the world. They always hugely exag-
gerate the numbers of women who are being killed and

mutilated by illegal abortions and use always-fictitious
stories told by always-anonymous women to play on
the sympathies of the government and the people.
If the pro-abortionists are so concerned about the
health of women, why do they not simply call for en-
forcement of the existing laws and the arrest of the ille-
gal abortionists? After all, everyone usually knows who
they are, and police could easily locate them and take
them out of action.
The answer is this: The pro-abortionists do not
call for the arrest of the abortionists who are alleged-
ly butchering women because they do not care about
women’s lives; all they care about is the legalization of
abortion and the vast income that it will bring.
It is always all about the money.
We must ask ourselves this question: If abortion
is such a clandestine operation, how can the pro-abor-
tionists possibly produce such a hard figure of dozens
(or hundreds, or thousands) of women dying from il-
legal abortions each year? In answer to this question,
they always refer to unspecified “hospital records.” But
when pro-lifers demand to see these “hospital records,”
it is always impossible because of “privacy concerns.”
This way, the pro-abortionists can lie with impunity.
Laws should never be based on feelings — only on
facts. As lawyers say, “hard cases make bad law.” This
is certainly the case in the West, where the numbers
Abortion 57
of abortions increased so hugely after legalization that

most of Europe is dying out because of it.
And women are still dying by the hundreds, be-
cause the same incompetent butchers who kill women
before abortion is legalized simply continue their prac-
tices after it is legalized.
Pro-abortionists always deliberately lie about the
numbers of women dying of illegal abortions, because
this is their most powerful weapon and because they
have no regard for the truth. Pro-abortionists usually
populate the Ministries of Health and hospital boards,
and disseminate biased data for the purposes of influ-
encing public opinion and government policy — so
don’t trust so-called “surveys of hospital data” or gov-
ernment figures just because they come from a “repu-
table source.”
The table below shows just a few examples of how
pro-abortionists have lied about the number of women
dying from illegal abortions around the world:
Country or Claimed Factor of
Region Figure Actual Figure Exaggeration
India 600,000 1,800 333 times
Brazil 400,000 241 1,660 times
Mexico 140,000 159 881 times
Africa 74,000 150 493 times
Italy 20,000 55 365 times
Germany 15,000 100 150 times
United States 10,000 40 250 times

Portugal 2,000 12 167 times
World 1,000,000 2,640 379 times
 See Chapter 7 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Internation-

al’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion,”
for a detailed study of this subject.
22. Ectopic pregnancy, abortion, and the “double

effect”
A devout woman in my parish is in a terrible situ‑
ation. Her doctor told her that she has an ectopic
pregnancy and that she will die unless she has an
abortion. May I tell her that she can have the abor‑
tion?
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans
direct abortion to save the life of the mother. How-
ever — and this is an extremely important point — the
mother’s life may be saved by a surgical procedure that
does not directly attack the preborn baby’s life.
The most common health difficulties that may set
a mother’s life against that of her preborn child’s are an
ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and
cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva
or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.
In such cases, under the principle of the “double ef-
Abortion 59
fect,” attending physicians must do everything in their

power to save both the mother and the child. However,
if the physicians decide that the mother’s life can only
be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with
it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tis-
sue essential for the preborn baby’s life, the baby will
of course die. The Church teaches that this kind of
surgery would not be categorized as an “abortion.”
This is all the difference between deliberate murder
(abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the twofold, or double effect,
states that it is morally allowable to perform an action
that will produce both good and bad effects as long as
the following five conditions are all met.1 The example
shown below is for the treatment of an ectopic preg-
nancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fal-
lopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the
tube will eventually rupture and will usually cause the
death of both the mother and the child.
(1) The object of the action to be performed must
be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In
the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the object of the
surgery is to remove a pathological organ which
presents a threat to the life of the woman. By con-
trast, the object of surgical or chemical abortion
is simply to kill the preborn child (“object” is the
end toward which an action tends, and does not
connote the intention(s) of the operator, as does

the word “objective”).
(2) The good effect must not come about as a result of
the evil effect, but must come directly from the ac-
tion itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the
mother’s life) is not caused by the bad effect (the
death of the preborn child). By contrast, in the
case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abor-
tion), the death of the child is wrongly considered
to be the “good” effect.
(3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only
permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic
pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want
to kill the baby; its death is an unintended and
unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast,
the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child.
(4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for per-
mitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the
reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that
is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the
baby’s death. Pro‑abortion groups often stretch
this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as
to justify all abortions under the principle of the
double effect because, as they allege, all abortions
threaten the life of the mother in some way.
(5) Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in
(4) above, namely, that there is no other alterna-
tive available to solve the problem at hand. If
Abortion 61
there are alternatives other than the intervention

that offer better possibilities to save both mother
and preborn child, these of course must be used.
In fact, this last condition is the one that most
clearly distinguishes the “indirect abortion” case
(the case under the double effect principle) from
the “therapeutic” abortion case.
1. Rev. Edward J. Hayes, et al. Catholicism and Ethics [Norwood,
Massachusetts: C.R. Publications], 1997, pages 54 to 57; Pope
Pius XII, address to the Family Front Congress on November
27, 1951; Pope Pius XII, address to the Italian Union of Mid-
wives of October 29, 1951 [Acta Apostilicae Sedis, 43(1951),
page 855]; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Decla-
ration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, ¶14.
tional’s Pro-Life CD Library, “Catholic Church Teachings on
Abortion,” for a more detailed theological and scientific expla-
nation of the “double effect.”
23. Pro-abortion politicians presenting themselves for

Communion
A local politician is a member of my parish. When‑
ever a vote on abortion comes up, he invariably
votes for abortion. He is also vocally “pro‑choice”
and is a member of a local pro‑abortion group. Lo‑
cal pro‑lifers have told me that I should deny him
Holy Communion. Should I follow their advice?
This is a case of a person with a certain degree of

public influence causing scandal to the faithful and
possibly leading them astray. By receiving the Blessed
Sacrament while voting solidly pro-abortion, he is, by
his actions, telling the people in your parish that it
is perfectly acceptable to be both Catholic and “pro-
choice.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. A per-
son who advocates the grave sin of abortion, and who
excuses himself by telling you that he keeps his public
and private lives separate, is fooling himself.
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he
gave clear guidelines on how priests should handle this
kind of situation:
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when
a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (under-
stood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consis-
tently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion
and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him,
instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing
him that he is not to present himself for Holy Commu-
nion until he brings to an end the objective situation of
sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied
the Eucharist.
When “these precautionary measures have not had their

effect or in which they were not possible,” and the per-
Abortion 63
son in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents

himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of
Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” This
decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a pen-
alty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing
judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is
reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive
Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.1
A few dioceses have enacted policies that allow
pro-abortion politicians to receive Communion in at-
tempts to defuse such controversies.
If this is the case, you can speak to the Chancellor
about the conflict between this policy and that of the
Vatican instruction shown above.
1. July 2004 Memorandum of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to The-

odore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.,
entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General
Principles.”
24. Abortion and the role of guilt

I know, from hearing Confessions in my parish for
several years, that many women have had abortions.
One person told me that I should never preach
against abortion from the pulpit because that would
psychologically wound and cause guilt in the wom‑
en in my parish who have had abortions. What
should I do?
If people do not hear that abortion is a grave evil

from the pulpit, they will not hear the message at all.
Most Catholics have never heard a homily about why
abortion, contraception and sterilization are wrong,
and so they remain ignorant and continue these prac-
tices.
People need to hear about the evil of abortion,
whether or not they have had one.
Women who have had abortions may be suffering
from intense unresolved feelings that are causing them
problems in their relationships — anger at their boy-
friends, husbands or families; sorrow at the knowledge
that they have killed their own child; or a belief that
God could never forgive them for what they have done.
Hearing the basic truth about abortion will help them
begin the journey towards healing, and will also lead to
repentance and the awakening of conscience in many
who have been involved in the abortion industry either
as a provider or as a customer.
Certainly women who have had an abortion, and
who are hearing for the first time that it is a mortal
sin, will be shocked. But you can cushion the blow by
emphasizing God’s infinite mercy, and His ardent de-
sire to forgive His children and bless them abundantly
through His Church. A balanced view of God’s jus-
tice and mercy can better help people understand their
faults and repent.
When it comes to sexual morality, there is always
Abortion 65
far more damage done by silence than by speaking out.

In the absence of firm direction on divorce, abortion,
contraception, homosexuality or any of the other issues
dealing with sexual morality, people will think that it
is perfectly fine to make up their own minds and will
develop badly warped consciences.
If someone says that you, as a priest, should not
preach against abortion because it may cause some
people guilt, ask them if you should cease preaching
against adultery, murder and racism because it may
cause the adulterers, murderers and racists in your con-
gregation to feel guilt.
 For those priests who would like to speak out on different as-
pects of sexual morality, here are two good resources: (1) The
Priests for Life Web site at www.priestsforlife.org and (2) The
pamphlet by Father Daniel McCaffrey and Father Matthew
Habiger entitled “Getting Beyond ‘I Can’t,’” available from
One More Soul at www.OMSoul.com.
25. “Free choice” and abortion

I heard a radio debate recently on the subject of
abortion. The “pro-choice” person said that we
must always have the “freedom to choose.” How
can I reply to this argument?
No freedom is absolute. All freedoms have lim-
its on them, and for good reason. Unlimited personal

freedom eventually means spiritual slavery and a total
disregard for the welfare of others.
To put it simply, some choices are wrong.
We all live under the guidance of tens of thousands
of laws, orders, and local ordinances of every type gov-
erning or curtailing activities from capital murder to
larceny, and each one of these restrictions limits our
“freedom of choice.”
When seen in this light, the slogan “freedom of
choice” loses all of its allure and practical meaning.
As a priest, you have a duty to try to dissuade peo-
ple from sin. In fact, every Catholic bears this duty
(Luke 17:3). We cannot simply stand by and observe a
person tread the wide and easy road to Hell, and God
will hold us accountable if we do not try our best to
turn them from that fatal highway (Ezekiel 3:18-19).
If we took the slogan “freedom of choice” at face
value, the “freedom to choose” would supersede all
other freedoms. Rapists could claim the “freedom to
choose” rape. Child molesters could claim the “free-
dom to choose” to sexually assault children (and some
actually do). Those who dislike homosexuals could
claim the “freedom to choose” beating them up.
Once again, some choices are wrong.
If you use these examples, a pro‑abortionist might
point out that rape and assault involve a victim. This
will give you a fine opportunity to stress that abortion
Abortion 67
also has a victim — the most helpless and innocent

victim of all — and death by dismemberment or slow
salt‑poisoning is a fate far worse than being beaten up
or even raped.
 Detailed descriptions of these and other abortion procedures

are contained in Chapter 1 of The Facts of Life, “Surgical Abor-
tion,” on Human Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
26. It’s her body, isn’t it?

A pro-abortion woman told me that she could do
anything she liked with her body. How can I reply
to this argument?
Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. We
cannot do with them whatever we please. We cannot
mutilate them, neglect them or destroy them (1 Corin-
thians 6:19-20).
In the narrower case of abortion, the right to pri-
vacy and control over one’s body does not in any way
imply the right to destroy another person’s body. And a
woman has already procreated when she has conceived.
The only question that remains is whether or not she
will kill.
It is true, of course, that the baby is inside the
mother’s body. But this no more makes it a part of
her body than being inside a car makes one a part of
the car. Even other living creatures inside a woman’s

body and entirely dependent upon it — say tapeworms
or other parasites — are by no stretch of the imagina-
tion part of her body. They are physiologically entirely
separate and distinct living creatures.
Many people, when confronted with this logic,
will argue that the baby is totally dependent upon the
mother. They are implying that this allows the mother
the “right” to dispose of her baby. This is a separate
argument and should be treated as such. After all,
when a baby is born, it is still completely and totally
dependent upon others for its survival, just as much as
it was before it was born. Does this give us the right to
dispose of it?
Finally, let us look at genetics and physiology.
If the baby were part of the woman’s body, it should
bear the same characteristics as the mother. After all, ge-
neticists can positively identify the individual person from
whom a cell came by examining its genetic structure.
In order to highlight the fact that the baby is a sep-
arate being, consider these facts, which not even the
most ignorant pro‑abortionist can deny:
• All mothers are obviously female. About half of
their children are male. How can a human be-
ing be both male and female?
• The mother and baby frequently have different
blood types.
Abortion 69
• The baby can be a different race from the moth-

er.
• Every cell in the mother’s body has a set of chro-
mosomal characteristics that is entirely distinct
from every cell in the baby’s body.
• When the fetus anchors itself to the uterine wall,
there is a concerted attack by white blood cells
to defeat it, and the fetus must defend itself.
The mother’s immune system recognizes it as
“non‑self.” Therefore, it is not part of her body.
• The baby can die without the mother dying.
The mother can die without the baby dying (the
baby can be rescued if he or she is viable.)
• The baby initiates a process that culminates
in its leaving the mother’s body. Challenge a
pro‑abortionist to name any other part of the
body that does this.
Sometimes a heartless pro‑abortionist will insist
that “the fetus is a parasite.” In such a case, they are
acknowledging its separate nature, because parasites are
never part of their host’s body. If the fetus is simulta-
neously a parasite and part of the mother’s body, that
would mean that the mother is a parasite as well!
 For more information on the nature and development of the pre-

born child, see Chapter 12 of The Facts of Life, “The Miracle of Fetal
Development,” on Human Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 3
End of Life Issues

27. Nutrition, hydration and “quality of life”
There is an 83‑year‑old man in my parish who is
bedridden, and who has been in a coma for several
months. His relatives say that he has no “quality
of life.” He receives his nutrition and hydration
by tube, and the relatives want to remove the tube.
What should I tell them?
The term “quality of life” is completely useless
when assessing a person’s condition, because it is such
a flexible term. It can literally mean anything, and is
usually judged by people who have a vested interest in
the disabled person’s condition.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB) recognized the usual motivation for with-
drawing nutrition and hydration when it said that
[N]utrition and hydration (whether orally administered

or medically assisted) are sometimes withdrawn not be-
cause a patient is dying, but precisely because a patient is
not dying (or not dying quickly) and someone believes
70
End of Life Issues 71
it would be better if he or she did, generally because the

patient is perceived as having an unacceptably low “qual-
ity of life” or as imposing burdens on others.1
The primary point to make here is that nutrition

and hydration are basic human rights. We do not even
execute mass murderers by denying them food and wa-
ter because it is such an agonizing cause of death.
The Catholic Church teaches that no person may
be deprived of food and water as long as they can do
him good. However, if their provision causes signifi-
cant pain or discomfort in the very last stages of life —
when inevitable death is truly imminent, within mere
hours — then it may be permissible to withdraw them
to avoid pain and suffering.
If a stomach tube is causing a person pain, and the
person is near death, nutrition would not be doing him
any good, and it would be permissible to remove the
stomach tube.
In all cases of withdrawal of nutrition and hydra-
tion, three conditions must be met:
(1) The withdrawal must not be intended to cause or
hasten the death of the person;
(2) The current form of feeding causes significant pain
or is otherwise contraindicated; and
(3) The person is so close to death that further nutri-
tion will do him no good, and he will die natu-
rally before the resultant hunger and thirst cause

significant pain.2
1. USCCB Committee for Pro‑Life Activities. “Nutrition and
Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections,” April 1992.
2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on
Euthanasia, May 5, 1980, Section IV, “Due Proportion in the
Use of Remedies.” The full text of this document is on Human
Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
28. End of life care and painkillers

A young man in our parish was recently diagnosed
with terminal pancreatic cancer. It is a particularly
virulent case, and he is now bedridden and in con‑
stant severe pain. His physician wants to administer
enough painkillers to render him unconscious for
long periods of time. Is this permissible?
People commonly ask three questions regarding the
use of pain‑killing drugs near the end of life, as shown
below.
(a) May pain-killers be used if they unintentionally
shorten the life of the person?
In general, it is permissible to use pain‑killers that
dull severe pain, even if they shorten the life of the
patient. This is an application of the principle of the
“double effect,” which states that it is sinful to shorten
the life of a person deliberately, but if the primary pur-
pose of a drug is to relieve severe pain, and the shorten-

ing of life is merely an anticipated side effect, giving the
drug is permissible.
The intent of the treatment is the key to this prin-
ciple.
That the shortening of life must be insignificant in
such a case is a particularly important point; this is not
a loophole that allows the administration of lethal over-
doses of pain‑killers to those who could otherwise live
for years.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care
owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.
The use of pain‑killers to alleviate the sufferings of the
dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be
morally in conformity with human dignity if death is
not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen
and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special
form of disinterested charity. As such it should be en-
couraged (¶2279).
The Vatican’s Declaration on Euthanasia further

clarifies this point:
In answer to a group of doctors who had put the ques-

tion: “Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by
the use of narcotics ... permitted by religion and moral-
ity to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach

of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will
shorten life)?” The Pope [Pius XII] said: “If no other
means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does
not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral
duties: Yes.”
In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or

sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the in-
tention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this
purpose pain‑killers available to medicine.1
(b) May pain-killers be used if they induce semi‑con‑

sciousness?
The Declaration on Euthanasia also states that
pain‑killing medications may be used even if they in-
duce semi‑consciousness:
Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic
way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human
and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick
people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or sup-
pressing pain, even though these may cause as a second-
ary effect semi‑consciousness and reduced lucidity. As
for those who are not in a state to express themselves,
one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these
pain‑killers, and have them administered according to
the doctor’s advice.2
(c) May pain-killers be used if they induce total loss

of consciousness?
In certain cases it may be permissible and prudent
to use pain-killers if they cause complete unconscious-
ness, if the person has had the opportunity to properly
prepare his soul for his meeting with God.
Once again, the Declaration on Euthanasia clarifies
this point:
However, pain‑killers that cause unconsciousness need
special consideration. For a person not only has to be
able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obli-
gations; he or she also has to prepare himself or herself
with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius
XII warns: “It is not right to deprive the dying person of
consciousness without a serious reason.”3
1. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on

Euthanasia, May 5, 1980. Section III, “The Meaning of Suf-
fering for Christians and the Use of Pain‑Killers.” The com-
plete text of this document is on Human Life International’s
Pro-Life CD Library.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
29. “Living wills” and other advance directives

A doctor has told an elderly widow in my parish that
she should sign a Living Will. What is a “Living
Will,” and are there any problems with it?
The “Living Will” is an advance directive by which
a person can assert in writing a desire not to be kept
alive by life‑sustaining medical equipment and proce-
dures when his or her condition has been diagnosed as
terminal, or under certain other conditions. “Living
Wills” can be custom‑tailored to meet any actual or
perceived need or wish.
Many people believe the “Living Will” is neces-
sary in order to clarify a patient’s legitimate right to
refuse extraordinary medical treatment. However, the
“Living Will” is completely unnecessary because this
is a right that all patients already possess in most coun-
tries. “Living Wills” are generally unnecessary under
present law because there is nothing to prevent doctors
from withholding or withdrawing life‑sustaining medi-
cal treatment when all reasonable hope for recovery is
gone.
The primary danger of the “Living Will” is that a
person usually signs it long before he knows if or when
he will be incapacitated — or what the circumstances
of that incapacitation will be. This means that a person
cannot specify the desired details of his treatment for
future medical conditions. It would also be difficult
for a family doctor to make the decisions that would be

in the patient’s best interests if such decisions conflict
with the provisions of the “Living Will.”
A preferable alternative to the “Living Will” is the
Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, or DPA,
which simply transfers the responsibility for making
medical decisions from the patient to another person
when the patient becomes incompetent.
A DPA allows someone who shares his values re-
garding the sanctity of life to become his “attorney in
fact.” The designated person need not be an attorney
or health care worker; he or she may be a spouse, rela-
tive, priest, rabbi or minister, or fellow churchgoer.
A person who selects another to be the executor
of a DPA should be sure that the executor shares his
values regarding the sanctity of human life; that he has
thoroughly discussed his wishes with the executor re-
garding medical care should he become incapacitated;
and that the executor will be available and capable of
making proper decisions under stress.

 For more information on the “Living Will,” and on euthanasia

in general, see Chapter 23 of The Facts of Life on Human Life
International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
30. “Death with Dignity”

A parishioner of mine said that he would never want
to live as a “vegetable.” He wants to “die with dig‑
nity.” Why should we keep people alive if they are
unresponsive or just don’t want to live anymore?
Shouldn’t this be their choice?
To begin with, nobody should be referred to as a
“vegetable.” We derive our dignity from being made
in the image and likeness of God. Whether we are old
or young, born or unborn, healthy or in a coma, we do
not lose this most fundamental quality.
A “death with dignity” means different things to
different people. All people desire a dignified death for
themselves and for their loved ones. However, when
a person’s fear of death is exceeded by his fear of pain
or loss of control, he is in a state of continuous mortal
terror and may see death as a blessed release from his
current situation. Such a person necessarily defines his
degree of dignity by purely physical or emotional cri-
teria.
By contrast, the Catholic Church perceives a loss of
spiritual dignity when a person loses his focus on God
and instead desires only a release from an existence that
he or others may find pointless and wasteful.
True compassion demands that all of us love and
support one another, regardless of our functional ca-
pacity or appearance, and prepare the dying for their
ultimate meeting with God. This is the true definition

of living with dignity, even when in the last stages of
dying.
Of course, severe pain suffered for too long can de-
stroy the strongest of people. This is why the Catholic
Church teaches that it is not proper to expect heroic
virtue from all people, and that pain‑killers may be
used, even if they lead to semi‑lucidity or quicker death
in some cases (see Question 28 for elaboration on the
licit use of pain‑killers).
A certain degree of pain at the end of life allows us
to follow Christ all the way to the Cross. In one way, it
seems inconsistent for Christians to be willing to suffer
various indignities and inconveniences in the name of
Christ over a period of decades during their lives, and
then shy away from complete participation in the ulti-
mate suffering of Our Lord at the point of death.
From a “slippery slope” point of view, euthanasia
is much like other evils. We have seen in nations like
Holland and the United States that it began with only
the hardest of the hard cases, and now people who
simply do not want to live are being euthanized, along
with handicapped infants who have no say in whether
they live or die. Our lives belong to God, and only He
has the right to end them (Romans 14:7-8).1
1. See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church (¶2280): “It is

God Who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged
to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honor and the
salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life
God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.” Also see:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on
Euthanasia, May 5, 1980. The complete texts of the Catechism
and the Declaration on Euthanasia are on Human Life Interna-
tional’s Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 4
Homosexuality
31. Blessing their union?
Since long before I arrived at this parish, two male
parishioners have been living together as a married
couple. To tell the truth, they are a better model
for matrimony than many of the man‑woman mar‑
riages in my parish, since they are totally committed
to each other and very generously support the par‑
ish. May I privately bless their union and encourage
them in their faithfulness?
God ordained the sacrament of Matrimony — and,
by implication, sexual relationships — to be between
a man and a woman only. The Church teaches that
homosexual and polygamous relationships are intrin-
sically disordered, and for good reason. Marriage is
meant to be unitive, procreative and exclusive.
Some may point to the sorry state of marriage in
the world today. In many Western nations, about one
in two marriages occurring today will end in divorce.
People say that homosexual “marriage” will not further
degrade an institution that is in such poor condition.
81
But the dilution of the meaning of the Sacrament is

what is most dangerous to it. Some have even said that
marriage should be done away with completely, because
it has lost its meaning.
Homosexual “marriage” is a fraud, a hoax, a sham.
After all, if two men can get married to each other, why
not three men, or two men and two women, or any
other combination? This point is already being argued
by polygamists.
Certainly marriage is in bad shape today. But the
answer to this problem is not to throw up our hands
in defeat and let it slide into ruin further, but to get
back to emphasizing the proper instruction of engaged
couples and support for couples who are sincerely try-
ing to make their marriages work.
Supporting two men living as a married couple,
regardless of how altruistic they may appear, sends a
disastrous message to all those defending marriage. It
also further endangers the souls of the men living in
such an arrangement.
Finally, the homosexual lifestyle is absolutely dead-
ly from a public health viewpoint. It has been said
that “God always forgives, man sometimes forgives,
but Nature never forgives.” This is certainly true with
homosexuals, whose rates of suicide, murder, domes-
tic violence, drug and alcohol addiction, and sexually
transmitted diseases are all much, much higher than
for the rest of the population.
Homosexuality 83
In fact, on average, both male and female active ho-

mosexuals lose a full 20 to 25 years from their lifespans
due to their practices and other factors.1
This means that, not only are unrepentant homo-
sexuals in grave danger of losing their souls, but they
live shorter and unhappier lives on earth as well.
1. Several major studies have shown that sexually active homo-

sexuals lose many years from their life spans. The first of
these, which examined tens of thousands of obituaries of ho-
mosexuals, found that they lose about twenty years from their
lives (Paul Cameron. “Gay Obituaries Closely Track Official-
ly Reported Deaths from AIDS.” Psychological Reports (2005;
96:693-697). The homosexual lobby attacked the author of
this study ferociously and declared that he was “discredited,”
but other studies bear out Cameron’s conclusions. One such
study is Robert S. Hogg, et al. “Modeling the Impact of
HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men.” In-
ternational Journal of Epidemeology (1997; 26:657-661). In
2007, Brian Clowes compiled 200 obituaries in the homo-
sexual magazines New York Blade and Washington Blade and
confirmed these results yet again. It is interesting to note that
the rates of cancer, suicide and murder are also much higher
among sexually active homosexuals than they are among the
general population.

32. Sinfulness
Since God made us the way we are, why does the
Church consider a homosexual orientation to be
sinful?
To begin with, the Catholic Church has never
taught that a homosexual orientation is sinful. The
Church teaches that a homosexual orientation is “dis-
ordered.” The Church treats a homosexual inclination
as a tendency towards a particular type of sin, just as a
kleptomaniac might be tempted to steal.
If a kleptomaniac felt a strong inclination to steal
from a department store but resisted his temptations,
he would not be guilty of sin, but would be worthy of
praise for his resistance to sin. In the same manner, a
person with same-sex attraction who does not give in
to his or her urges is worthy of respect and admiration.
We often hear from homosexual activists that they
were “born that way.” They quote several studies in
support of this view, although all of the studies are
fatally flawed. Civil rights legislation favoring homo-
sexuals is based upon the idea that they were “born that
way” and cannot change. Homophiles often compare
sexual orientation to left-handedness, and give it about
as much moral weight.
However, if we think about it for a minute, the
question of whether or not people are born homosexu-
al is actually completely irrelevant.
Homosexuality 85
After all, everyone is prone to sin. We are born

with fallen natures, and suffer from the tendency to sin,
or concupiscence. Some of us may tend towards exces-
sive drink, some to violence, and some to theft. But
this does not excuse alcoholism, assault and thievery.
Yet some homosexuals think that, just because they feel
same-sex urges, that they must not only be coddled but
honored.
It is entirely possible for anyone to resist the sinful
tendencies we are born with. To believe otherwise is to
reject the saving power of grace. Anyone who simply
gives in to his urges and indulges them has given up the
struggle against sin that we must all fight to our dying
breaths.
 Resources for those who wish to study the topic of homosexu-

ality more closely are included on Human Life International’s
Pro-Life CD Library; (1) Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith. “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,”
October 1, 1986; and (2) the book Homosexuality: Rhetoric
and Reality, by Brian Clowes.
33. Civil Rights

Why should we not give homosexuals civil rights?
After all, they comprise at least ten percent of the
population and are therefore a very large minority.
Historically, minority status has been granted to
groups of people based upon their physical characteris-

tics or belief systems. Homosexuals claim to be a mi-
nority based purely on their sexual behavior patterns,
which is an illegitimate use of the status.
One of the most persuasive arguments that homo-
philes have traditionally used to support their agenda
is the assertion that fully ten percent of the population
is “gay.”
The original source of the “ten percent” statistic is
Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the world’s best-known “sexolo-
gist.” His research has been thoroughly debunked, be-
cause Kinsey himself was a homosexual, and because he
polled convicted sex offenders and male prostitutes in
order to arrive at the “ten percent” number that homo-
sexual activists have been using ever since.
A summary of ten major studies of nearly 200,000
people carried out in five nations showed that 3.0 per-
cent of adult men and 3.5 percent of adult women have
ever had a homosexual experience at any time during
their entire lives. Other major studies shows that about
1.5 percent of people consider themselves to be exclu-
sively homosexual.1
Regardless of how large this self-professed “minor-
ity” is, the Church can never support special privileges
for a group of people whose behavior is mortally sinful.
Moreover, homosexuals already enjoy the civil
rights that everyone else possesses in most societies.
We have seen, in both North America and Europe, that
Homosexuality 87
their pursuit of additional rights leads to repression and

ridicule of opposing viewpoints and even violent perse-
cution of the Church.2
1. For more information on this topic, see: Brian Clowes. Ho-

mosexuality: Rhetoric and Reality, Chapter 2, “Homosexual
Orientation and the ‘Ten Percent’ Myth.” This book is on
Human Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
2. For documentation on many incidents of violence and intimi-
dation committed by homosexuals against churches and indi-
viduals who oppose them, see: Brian Clowes. Homosexuality:
Rhetoric and Reality, Chapter 4, “Homosexual Tactics.”
34. Credibility of the Church

The recent scandals have greatly damaged the cred‑
ibility of the Church in speaking about sexual mo‑
rality. How can I speak about homosexuality in par‑
ticular under these conditions?
The authority of the Church to speak on matters of
sexual morality comes from Jesus Christ Himself (Mat-
thew 28:19-20). Regardless of what sinful man may
do, or what the public opinion polls may say, you as
a priest of God have been invested by Our Lord Him-
self to teach, and nobody can take that authority away
from you.
A short discussion on the sex abuse crisis in the
United States is very revealing indeed.
The John Jay study of the crisis defined two classes

of sexual molesters.
The first is “pedophiles,” who are people who en-
gage in “behaviors related to sexual contact with a pre-
pubescent child.” The John Jay study defined this as
the molestation of children aged ten and younger.
The second class of molesters are “ephebophiles,”
defined as people who “exhibit these same fantasies,
urges or behaviors towards post-pubescent youths,”
those aged eleven and up. The National Review Board,
which commissioned the John Jay study, defined ephe-
bophilia as a “homosexual attraction to adolescent
males.”
The John Jay study analyzed the ages of children
molested by priests and deacons and found that the
crisis was caused not by priests, but by homosexuals:
• The United States government has found that,
overall, only 14.4% (one of seven) children victim-
ized by sexual abuse are boys. However, 85.3% (six
of seven) of the victims of predatory priests were
boys.
• An amazing 69.7% of all of the victims during the
crisis were boys aged eleven to seventeen — prov-
ing that the root of the problem is homosexual
ephebophilia.
So, in short, the problem was not one of “priestly
pedophilia,” but of homosexual ephebophilia.
The Sacrament of Matrimony 89
More than a dozen major studies performed by ho-

mosexuals or their sympathizers have revealed that ho-
mosexual males are from 50 to 200 times more likely to
molest children than heterosexual males. Meanwhile,
about four percent of priests in the United States were
even accused of the sexual molestation of children.1
1. All of this information is documented in Brian W. Clowes and

David L. Sonnier. “Child Molestation by Homosexuals and
Heterosexuals.” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2005, pages
44 to 54. You can find this article on Human Life Interna-
tional’s Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 5
The Sacrament of Matrimony

35. Living together before marriage
A young couple in my parish is living together, and
they want to be married in the Church. They in‑
sist that have a right to what they call a “trial mar‑
riage,” and that, since it will demonstrate whether
or not they are compatible, it will actually lead to a
healthier and more durable marriage. What can I
say to them?
More than half of all couples in North America
and Europe cohabit before getting married. Those who
participate in cohabitation often strongly believe that
such “practice” before marriage will strengthen their
relationship when they finally do get married.
Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is the case. The
divorce rate among people in the United States who do
not cohabit is a distressingly high 21 percent — but
the divorce rate among people who do cohabit before
marriage is twice as high, at 39 percent.1 It seems that
people who disregard the “rules” before marriage feel
free to disregard them after marriage.
90
Any way you look at it, cohabitation is degrading

to the whole concept of marriage and family:
• Men in cohabiting relationships are four times
more likely to cheat on their partners.2
• Partly as a result of this, the rate of sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs) among cohabiting
couples is six times higher than among married
couples.3
• Cohabiting couples face much greater risks of
substance abuse, psychiatric problems, poverty
and child abuse than married couples.4
• As always in such situations, the children suffer
the most. The poverty rate among children of co-
habiting couples is five times greater than the rate
among children in married‑couple households.5
Marriage is a natural and original institution that
predates any public authority. Matrimony is a declared
commitment of husband and wife to each other for
life and includes an intention to be fruitful and bear
children. It is also a Sacrament that confers specific
graces which greatly assist the spouses to overcome the
obstacles they will undoubtedly encounter in the years
ahead. It is, in all of its aspects, a solemn covenant that
confers stability upon the relationship between hus-
band and wife, and which promises a safe and secure
environment for their children.
All of these qualities are missing when couples co-
habit. In fact, many couples who are living together

never get married at all in spite of their original inten-
tions, and often have no children. Since the declared
commitment is lacking, these relationships almost al-
ways break-up, and the woman and children (if any)
are left to struggle on their own.
1. William J. Bennett. The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral

Collapse of the American Family, 2001.
2. J.C. Crouse. “Cohabitation: Consequences for Mothers and
Children.” Presentation at the United Nations Conference for
the Tenth Anniversary of the International Year of the Family,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 11‑14, 2004.
3. J.C. Crouse. Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in
the Twentieth Century, 2000.
4. Patrick Schneider II. “Cohabitation is Bad for Men, Worse
for Women, and Horrible for Children.” New Oxford Review,
September 2007.
5. Bennett, op. cit.
 See also: (1) Pope John Paul II. Theology of the Body. This
magnificent series of 129 general audiences given by Pope
John Paul II from September 1979 to November 1984 covers
all aspects of marriage, personhood, procreation, parenthood,
purity, virginity and the damage caused by lust; (2) Pontifi-
cal Council for the Family. “Marriage, Family and De Facto
Unions,” July 26, 2000; and (3) the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, ¶2390-2391. All of these documents are contained
on the Pro-Life CD Library.
36. Annulment for abused wife

One of the men in my parish is a habitual drunkard.
He cannot hold onto a job, has had several extra‑
marital affairs, and beats his wife frequently. She
wants an annulment. What exactly does the Church
teach about annulments in such a case?
The most important pastoral considerations in such
a case are the safety of the wife and the preservation of
the marriage itself. The pastor and the people should
intervene in order to try to correct the behavior of the
husband. Often, other married men in the parish can
assist. If this course of action fails, it may be necessary
to call on the aid of social service agencies that can as-
sist the wife and any children.
The husband’s behavior is not only repugnant in
the eyes of the Church, but to society as well. The an-
swer to this terrible situation is not to end the marriage,
but to try to heal the relationship between the husband
and the wife.
When dealing with such a situation, it is impor-
tant to remember that, in granting an anullment, the
Church does not nullify the marriage with a Declara-
tion of Nullity; it recognizes that the marriage was null
to begin with.
In general if, on the wedding day, the legitimate
form was followed, then valid consent was given. If
this is the case, an annulment cannot be granted.
However, a number of factors, if proven, might

support the case for an annulment. If other interven-
tions fail and the husband’s abusive behavior contin-
ues, the pastor should assist the wife in contacting the
marriage Tribunal of her diocese or speaking to a canon
lawyer. This is necessary, because the Church’s law on
marriage, and the work of the Tribunals, is very com-
plicated and requires experienced guidance in order to
understand it.
It is essential to note that all annulments are based
upon some defect of consent by one or both of the
parties. If the conditions necessary to contract a mar-
riage were not present at the moment the man and the
woman expressed their consent, it may be possible to
obtain an annulment. If the husband’s abusive behav-
ior began at some time after the wedding, it could not
in itself be used as grounds for an annulment. How-
ever, judgment about the essential elements of consent
in a marriage which is gravely impaired by alcoholism
might constitute lack of the necessary discretion of
judgment and might support an annulment. The mar-
riage will be upheld until this lack of judgment can be
proven to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
Father Peter Stravinskas summarizes the different
grounds for a declaration of nullity:
A marriage can be declared invalid for a variety of rea-
sons: lack of canonical form if one party is Catholic and
thus required to be married in the presence of a priest,

deacon or bishop; the existence of an undispensed im-
pediment; the presence of an intention contrary to mar-
riage at the time of the wedding; the presence of [psy-
chic] factors that rendered one or both parties incapable
of knowing what they were doing or of assuming the
fundamental responsibilities of marriage.1
There are cases when the Church has dissolved true
(valid) marriages in favor of the Faith. These are ap-
plied under the Petrine Privilege and the Pauline Privi-
lege. These hold that non-consummated and non-Sac-
ramental marriages may be dissolved by the Pope.2
1. Rev. Peter Stravinskas. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclope-

dia [Our Sunday Visitor, 1994].
2. Code of Canon Law, 1983, ¶1142-1147.
* See also: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The Social
Agenda: A Collection of Magisterial Texts. Article Three, “The
Family,” ¶84-92. The full text of this document is on Human
Life International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
Chapter 6
Assisted Reproductive Technologies

37. Infertile couples
There is an infertile married couple in my parish.
They have been trying to have children for several
years now, with no success. Are there any resources
I might refer them to in order to help them?
This is a situation that must be handled with the
utmost delicacy and compassion. While millions of
women deliberately kill their unborn children through
abortion, infertile couples echo Rachel’s cry: “Give me
children or I will die!” (Genesis 30:1). Nobody who
has not experienced it can understand the depths of
the couple’s longing to see a part of each other reflected
in a child they yearn to give life to, a future citizen of
this world and of Heaven; and their thirst to participate
in the great adventure and great challenge of raising a
child. Truly, an infertile couple feels as if their life is
not complete, as they experience the monthly hope and
disappointment that seems to become more and more
inevitable.
Infertility is usually diagnosed if a couple cannot
96
Assisted Reproductive Technologies 97
conceive over a period of one year or suffers three or

more consecutive miscarriages. An inability to con-
ceive might be caused by one or more of the follow-
ing: failure of the wife to ovulate, low sperm count,
endometriosis, a blocked Fallopian tube, the impacts
of previous abortions or prolonged use of certain birth
control methods, bad nutrition or sleeping habits, or
environmental factors.
One might begin by asking if the couple is using
a method of Natural Family Planning (NFP) that in-
cludes charting the wife’s cycles, such as the sympto-
thermal method or the Creighton method. If they are
not using one of these methods, they might want to
learn how, because NFP can be used to achieve as well
as avoid pregnancy. The Couple to Couple League
(www.ccli.org) has thousands of teaching couples
around the world who can do two-on-two instruction
to help them learn the sympto-thermal method.
If this is not possible, another resource is Dr.
Thomas Hilgers’ NaProTechnology (Natural Procre-
ative Technology), which uses fertility care, not fertility
control, as its primary approach. Its basic concept is
to carefully monitor, chart and use various hormonal
events during the menstrual cycle in order to provide
information that the woman and qualified physicians
can use to identify problems that might be interfering
with the wife’s fertility.1
1. See the NaProTechnology Web site at www.naprotechnology.

com for more information on this method.
 For insight into the suffering experienced by infertile couples,
listen to the audio CD by Marie Meaney, Ph.D., “Embracing
the Cross of Infertility,” available from Human Life Interna-
tional.
38. In-vitro fertilization

An infertile married couple in my parish is con‑
cerned that they might be reaching the end of their
childbearing years, and they have looked into in‑vi‑
tro fertilization. What should I tell them about this
procedure?
There are more than one hundred varieties of what
are called assisted reproductive technologies, or ARTs.
These range from simple hyperstimulation of a wom-
an’s ovaries to produce many eggs all the way to com-
plex fertilization processes.
The Catholic Church always opposes substitut-
ing a technological act for the marriage act as a source
of procreation, but does not oppose assisting the act
with technology as long as the conditions listed below
are met. Many of the assisted reproductive proce-
dures now being used require masturbation, which the
Church teaches is a grave sin. Often, “excess” embry-
os are either harvested and frozen (most of which are
later discarded), or killed through “selective reduction”
(abortion) if the doctor wants to increase the odds of

full-term birth by reducing the number of babies to
one or two.
In-vitro fertilization (IVF), which is the most com-
monly used ART, has several fundamental moral prob-
lems.
IVF isolates both the father’s and the mother’s gam-
etes from their bodies via masturbation and laparosco-
py respectively. These gametes are mixed in a Petri dish
and, if fertilization takes place, the embryo is moni-
tored for proper growth. Any “defective” embryos are
destroyed, along with any deemed to be “excess” to the
requirements of the procedure. At about three or four
days, the doctor inserts the embryos into the woman’s
uterus with a catheter or tube.
The success rate of IVF is only about 25 percent, so
many couples undergo multiple procedures.
IVF and similar ARTs violate the principles of Do-
num Vitae, which states that an assisted reproductive
procedure must meet these five specific criteria in order
to preserve the procreative and unitive aspects of the
marital act:
(1) All assisted reproductive procedures should be
performed upon married couples only (Donum
Vitae, II, A, 2).
(2) The wife must contribute the egg and the hus-
band must contribute the sperm. No other per-
son must be involved, as this constitutes “tech-

nological adultery” (II, A, 2).
(3) Masturbation must not be required (II, B,
6, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church
¶2352). Note that sperm collection can licitly
be accomplished through “home collection,”
which consists of the use of a perforated con-
dom during natural intercourse.
(4) Fertilization must take place inside the wom-
an’s body (II, B, 4, c).
(5) “Spare” embryos must not be discarded, fro-
zen, or experimented upon, and procedures
such as “selective abortion” (pregnancy reduc-
tion) must not be used (I, 5).
There are a number of assisted reproductive tech-
nologies that are in use today that not only meet the
above criteria, but they are more frequently successful
than IVF. These include gamete intrafallopian transfer
(GIFT) and low tube ovum transfer (LTOT).
 For more information on assisted reproductive technologies,

see (1) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Donum
Vitae (1987), Part II, “Interventions Upon Human Procre-
ation,” available at www.cin.org/vatcong/donumvit.html; (2)
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae
(2008), Second Part, “New Problems Concerning Procre-
ation,” available at www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/;
(3) Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶2373-2379, “The Gift

of a Child;” and (4)The Facts of Life, Chapter 15, “Assisted
Reproduction,” which is on Human Life International’s Pro-
Life CD Library.
39. Surrogate motherhood

I see a lot in the newspapers lately about surrogate
motherhood. One infertile couple in another par‑
ish has said that they have a right to a child and are
going to pay another woman to carry their baby.
Should these people have a child by this method?
“Surrogate motherhood” usually involves the arti-
ficial insemination of a woman with a husband’s sperm
if his wife is infertile or does not want to carry her own
pregnancy to term. In some cases, the surrogate is im-
planted with the couple’s embryo after IVF. The sur-
rogate usually receives payment for carrying the child,
and relinquishes him to the contracting couple imme-
diately after birth.
Surrogate motherhood is a kind of “high-tech adul-
tery.” In street prostitution, the woman sells or rents
her body or body parts, the relationship to the “cus-
tomer” is entirely impersonal, she must do what she
is told, her value or usefulness comes solely from her
function, she is to leave when she is told, and if there is
a pimp, he gets a share of the money.
The only differences between prostitution and sur-
102 Pro-Life Handbook
rogacy are that intercourse is assisted by technology, the

woman intends to become pregnant, and the attending
physician acts as a kind of high-tech pimp. The surrogate
is selected on the basis of desirable qualities — appear-
ance, health, and fertility; is paid to provide her body for a
period of time, and then disappears from the scene.
Interestingly, most contracts between the surrogate
and the husband and wife insist the surrogate abort the
child if genetic tests show abnormalities unacceptable
to the husband and wife.1 Proponents of surrogate
motherhood treat the baby in question as mere prop-
erty under contract.
In response to a question about whether surrogate
motherhood is morally licit, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith replied in its document Donum
Vitae,
No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject artifi-
cial fertilization: For it is contrary to the unity of mar-
riage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human
person. Surrogate motherhood represents an objective
failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conju-
gal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the
dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried
in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by
his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families,
a division between the physical, psychological and moral
elements which constitute those families.2
Some married couples simply cannot accept the

heavy cross of infertility and desperately seek out any
intervention that might provide them with a child.
Sometimes they speak of a “right to a child,” as if their
mere desire entitles them to God’s “supreme gift.” But
such an attitude, understandable as it may be, reduces
the child to a mere object of acquisition, as Donum
Vitae explains:
[M]arriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to
have a child, but only the right to perform those natural
acts which are per se ordered to procreation.
A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to

the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object
to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as
an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, “the su-
preme gift” and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and
is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents.3
1. Donald DeMarco. In My Mother’s Womb: The Catholic Church’s

Defense of Natural Life [Manassas, Virginia: Trinity Commu-
nications], 1987, page 181.
2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Donum Vitae
(1987), ¶3. The full text of Donum Vitae is on Human Life
International’s Pro-Life CD Library.
3. Donum Vitae, ¶8.

A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Pro-Life Pastoral Handbook

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Pro-Life

Human Life International

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a

© 2010 Human Life International®

Human Life International®

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

23. Pro-abortion politicians presenting themselves

*This statement was given by Fr. Marx in the summer of 2009.

of HIV due to the false sense of security that they

and promote a special bond between husband and

1. See Human Life International’s full-color pro-life research

2. “Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children and House-

3. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (17th

 Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶2370.

2. The birth control pill for acne

clear up a woman’s complexion is willing to chemically

3. Contraception to alleviate overpopulation

We often hear that “the population of the world is

a look at the vast empty areas of country! This is like

document written by the United States government in

1. The United Nations Population Information Network (PO-

tion, total fertility rate, population growth rate, and median

4. The full text of NSSM-200, and an HLI analysis of the doc-

 See also: Evangelium Vitae, ¶16, 91, on Human Life Inter-

4. Why doesn’t the Church change its teachings on

we must understand that the Church is the guardian

 See Chapter 21 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Interna-

5. Promoting contraception to reduce abortion

tion (IPPF) does more than any other organization to

Perhaps the most direct way that contraception

1. Malcolm Potts, Peter Diggory, and John Peel. Abortion [Cam-

2. Stanley K. Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort. “Abortion Pa-

3. The United States divorce rate among married couples us-

 See Chapter 21 in The Facts of Life on Human Life Inter-

Male Condom 2% 15%

A. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (18th

Natural Family Planning (NFP)E

Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) — 3%

D. Annual rates are not applicable since RU-486 effectiveness is

E. Eight major studies on the effectiveness of typical methods of

6. Depo-Provera — Abortifacient or contraceptive?

progesterone acetate (DMPA), a synthetic form of the

traceptive actions include the development of a shallow

1. Patient information brochure. “Now Available in the U.S.:

2. Robert A. Hatcher, et al. Contraceptive Technology (18th

7. Sterilization to protect the mother’s health

This fact, that pregnancy does not endanger health,

• Former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr.

c. The evil effect must not be desired in itself but

1. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. Written statement to the Idaho

8. Sterilization in the later years

Risk of Fetal Birth Defects

30 0.11% (1 of 900) 0.68% (1 of 148) 99.32%

A. Hippocrates Magazine, May/June 1988, pages 68 and 69, and

If there is an immediate family history of a par-

gravely sinful. The Church condemns sexual steriliza-

Three things condition the moral permission of a surgi-

(1) that the preservation or functioning of a particular

(2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least no-

(3) that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative

(As far as sterilization is concerned), the conditions

is not therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy