REP. Peℓσѕι: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. Peℓσѕι: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. Peℓσѕι: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

63. But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

64. As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:"[50] The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bƖσσdshɛd against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

According to scholastic teaching the nature of a being is its essence considered as the source or principle of its activity. When an individual nature is complete in itself, that is, when it subsists in itself and is not communicated to or does not coalesce with any other being, it is called, in scholastic terminology, a suppositum. Actiones sunt suppositorum is a familiar axiom of the schools. It means that supposita are the ultimate source and subject of all activity; that all actions must be predicated of or attributed to supposita. When the suppositum, the complete and incommunicable individual nature, is endowed with reason or intelligence we have what is technically described as a person. Hence the accepted scholastic definition of a person is an individual and incommunicable substance or being of a rational nature.[1] The human person is a composite unified being constituted by the substantial union of body and soul. The union results in a single nature. A complete individual nature cannot be actuated by more than one substantial form. Hence the rational soul is the one and only substantial form of the living human body in all its activities and manifestations.[2]

It is generally accepted nowadays that the human embryo, immediately on its formation by the union of the male and female elements of conception, is endowed with a rational soul.[3] This is the theory of immediate animation. If this theory be true, then it is obvious that the human embryo, from the first moment of its existence as a living entity, fulfils the scholastic definition of a ‘person.’ From the very beginning of its life the newly-formed being in the fertilized ovum is individualized and completed as a separate incommunicable rational nature or person by the infusion into it by God of its substantial form, the human soul.

We have said that this theory of immediate animation is generally accepted by present-day writers. We do not propose to repeat here all the proofs advanced in favour of the theory.[4] But we should point out that it is perfectly in accordance with scholastic teaching to hold that the rational soul is, from the very beginning, the principle of life and development of the living nucleus formed at the moment of human conception. That a new living being is formed when the ovum is fertilized is undeniable. It is equally undeniable that this new being grows and develops in virtue of a spontaneous and intrinsic principle of life and that its development is along unified, constant and teleological lines. There is no evidence of any break of continuity, change of direction or substantial diversity in the process. Such an uninterrupted and fixed course of progress and development seems to point clearly to a single, unified and unaltered principle of life right from the beginning.[5] This single principle must be the rational soul, since even those who reject the theory of immediate animation cannot and do not deny that the soul is the principle of embryonic life from a fairly early stage.

Some few modern writers[6] hold the theory of mediate animation. They say that the human embryo is not immediately animated at conception by a rational soul but only after a certain stage of development has been reached. The defenders of this theory postulate a succession of embryonic forms or souls—vegetative, sensitive, rational—in the development of the new life formed at the moment of human conception. Though we have referred to modern defenders, the theory of mediate animation is very ancient. It is found in the writings of Aristotle and was accepted by St. Thomas. But the modern exposition of the theory differs at some points from that given by St. Thomas.[7]

In the very early stages of development there is evidence only of vegetative life in the human embryo. At a somewhat later stage indications of sensation and sensitive life appear. But this is not a sufficient ground for postulating the existence of a succession of embryonic souls. In the developed human being the rational soul is the single principle of all life— vegetative and sensitive as well as rational. Surely, then, the rational soul may be the principle of vegetative and sensitive life in the developing embryo?[8] There is no difficulty or contradiction here. Cardinal Mercier, who is, incidentally, a defender of the mediate animation theory, wrote : [9] Il est possible sans doute . . . que dés le priricipe Ia vie de l’embryon vienne d’une âme raisonnable.’ If, as the mediate animationists suggest, there must be evidence of sensitive life before a sensitive soul may be attributed to the human embryo, why must we not wait until there is evidence of rational life and activity before postulating the presence of a rational soul? There is no indication of rational activity in the embryonic stage of foetal development. Nor is there such an indication at any time in the prenatal period, or indeed, for a while after. Yet the defenders of the mediate animation theory admit that the human foetus is endowed with a rational soul long before birth. This admission is, of course, correct as far as it goes, but it does not fit logically into the usual exposition of the theory of mediate animation. The fact obviously is that the absence of rational activity is no argument against the presence of the rational soul. The human embryo can be described as a person, a rational being, if it has the radical power of reason and intelligence, even though this power may be undeveloped or in abeyance. In the early stages the embryo has not the external shape or species of a human being. But, again, this is not a valid proof that the embryo is not initially endowed with a human soul. If it were a valid proof, would it not be logical to hold also that the ostenta referred to in canon 748[10] do not possess a rational soul?

It would follow from the theory of mediate animation that the human embryo is not a person in the scholastic sense until it has reached the stage of development at which the rational soul is infused.

Anima rationalis probabiliter infunditur tantum quando foetus radicalem omnino mutationem subit et externam acquirit speciem hominis quod fit versus finem tertii mensis : tune utique adest ratio cur dicatur animari anima rationali.[11]

In this theory, then, the deliberate expulsion, from the mother’s womb, of the human embryo, before the end of the third month of pregnancy, would not be the crime of homicide. This expulsion, however, as the defenders of the mediate animation theory hasten to assure us, is intrinsically and gravely sinful.[12] It is, they say, the destruction of a living being which is homo in potentia and, indeed, in potentia propinquissima.

As we have indicated earlier, we hold strongly for the theory of immediate animation. But, of course, we cannot claim any finality for our judgment. And we should add that, whichever theory be held, the principle of the inviolability of the life of the human embryo must be preserved intact. In a public address[13] Pope Pius XII said: ‘Innocent human life, in whatsoever condition it is found, is withdrawn, from the very first moment of its existence from any direct deliberate attack. This is a fundamental right of the human person which is of universal value in the Christian conception of life; hence as valid for the life still hidden in the womb of the mother as for the life already born and developing independently of her; as much opposed to direct abortion as to the direct killing of the child before, during and after its birth. Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of the development of life still unborn in profane and ecclesiastical law and in certain civil and penal consequences, all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life.’

[1]Cf. Maher, Psychology, p. 521; cf. p. 343.
[2]Cf. Definition of the Council of Vienna, Denzinger-Umberg, Ench. Symb., n. 481
[3]Cf. Beraza, De Deo Creante, n. 1041.
[4]Cf. I. E. Record, xl (1932), pp. 449-60.
[5]Cf. Pujiula, Do Medicina Pastorali, n. 98.
[6]Cf. Merkelbach, Quaestiones de Embryologia, pp. 66—7.
[7]Cf. Messenger, Evolution and Theology, p. 88.
[8] ‘Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate.’
[9] Cours de Philosophie, Psychologie, ii, p. 336.
[10] Monstra et ostenta semper baptizentur saltem sub conditione.’
[11] Merkelbach, op. cit., p. 67.
[12] Cf. Merkelbach, Quaestiones de Embryologia, ii, p. 27.
[13] Address to ‘The Family Front,’ 26 November, 1951. Translation is from Catholic Docuмents, vi, p. 29.

Quote from: icterus

Well, whoever claims she is in communion is lying.  The NO Bishops can all be her little fangirls, and she still has incurred LS excommunication for assisting people in procuring abortions.

Why do you say she falls under a LS excommunication?

Quote from: icterus

Well, whoever claims she is in communion is lying.  The NO Bishops can all be her little fangirls, and she still has incurred LS excommunication for assisting people in procuring abortions.

Why do you say she falls under a LS excommunication?

“The penalty of excommunication for abortion extends to the mother, all medical personnel, anyone who offers the mother moral or financial support to abort, as well as those who publicly campaign for legalized abortion. Incidentally, no formal notification of such excommunication is necessary, as it takes effect as soon as the action is performed.” p. 77 The Catholic Answer Book vol 1, Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas PH.D S.T.D.