Language is the house of being, as per Heidegger; twaddle is the House of Representatives, as per Pelosi. In any case, it’s true that I tend to put less emphasis on the value of THE LAW for universally representing, converting and shaping mankind’s values, being a bit of a lawbreaker at heart. My first impulse is to quickly fashion the law into a crude tool (whatever its shape) just long enough to reach the depth of humanity and quickly hoist whatever lives cling to it. I don’t know for sure whether more refined thinkers, such as Dr. Nadal, would take it that far… but where is the line? Clearly you and Dr. Nadal do not entirely agree.

Patrick, your reply set has me thinking again, which is more than I can ask anyone – so I thank you for that, and hope that other readers will weigh your words as carefully as you did when wrote them.

Thanks for the response and I’m sorry I missed your post earlier.

The premise to your hypothetical question is a logical impossibility: “Say you know for certain that abortion will never be banned entirely.” How is it possible to know this for certain? Any civilized society must recognize that it is always evil to intentionally kill the innocent. This is not a high standard of morals for society but a low standard … a fundamental requirement for civil society, for indeed this law (part of the natural moral law, the “objective moral order”) is written on the heart of every person in that society. To propose a situation where we “know for certain that abortion will never be banned entirely” is a situation where the society is not made up of human beings.

Secondly, it is the requirement of Catholics, and all people of good will, to restore these non-negotiable ethical principles to the civil law (“banning abortion entirely”) when they are not acknowledged.(1) When we do this the law can protect fundamental human rights with stability. And since the law is also a teacher of morality, each civil law the pro-life movement proposes and supports for passage should stand in conformity with these fundamental principals and not reject them. Such incremental laws are indeed *authentic incremental* building blocks toward establishing societal recognition of fundamental inalienable rights of all, born and preborn.

If incremental bills routinely *reject* these fundamental principles, as Dr. Nadal concedes they presently do with “standard exceptions language,” they can *never,* and I repeat *never* contribute to building a societal recognition that each innocent human life is inviolable, for they are intrinsically unjust and explicitly violate this “non-negotiable” principle.(2) They rather establish the legal premise that the preborn are *not* human beings with inalienable rights which logically justifies abortion on demand (as shown in my previous comment above). Such laws also contribute to the culture of death notion that there is no body of laws transcendent to the state which all of us must adhere to, and thus there is no such Lawgiver either (i.e. God). Hence, such exceptions profess that “God is dead” and reinforce the fatal notion that it is the state that bestows or revokes human rights, etc. With such a premise, it is not surprising that we have a relativistic slippery slope which leads to euthanasia, IVF, stem cell research, human cloning, gay “marriage” etc.(3)

This is why the wording of laws is not mere “semantics,” for as Heidegger stated, “language is the house of being.” Either the language of the bill is going to reflect the truth of the objective moral order, or it won’t. It will thus help build-up and support the authentic good and recognition of that order, or it will undermine it and contribute to it’s further deterioration.

When a legislator votes for a bill, he is *willing the enactment* of what the bill *says,* no more and no less (for a bill only does what it says, nothing more or less). Thus, in a situation where abortion is presently legal for all 9 months of pregnancy, if the incremental bill only restricts abortion as your first example does (“abortion in the second and third trimester is outlawed”) the legislator is supporting a licit incremental bill that does not violate the natural moral law and thus authentically contributes to building a societal consensus of recognition for non-negotiable ethical principals. As Bl. John Paul II taught, “This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law (the present underlying law permitting abortion throughout pregnancy), but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Thus, the legislator is not cooperating with the abortions which remain *implicitly* legal.

I would thus say, authentic incremental legislation limits the evil of a current present law, without explicitly permitting such evil, and thus helps build consensus toward the required establishment of “non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society”(1, 2). Your second example (“abortions in the first trimester are legal, but all others are outlawed”) does not do this for it explicitly renders non-negotiable ethical principles as, indeed, negotiable (an illicit contradiction) and thus lays the invincible foundation for abortion on demand and every other culture of death totalitarian relativistic obamanation.

Thus, since contrary to your initial premise, establishing non-negotiable ethical principles is indeed very possible and remains a part of our moral and Christian duty as U.S. citizens, I would say Catholic legislators would be morally obligated to fight for your first example of wording, rejecting your second, under penalty of grave sin. For as legislators of civil law, they simply do not have the authority to *will the enactment* of a law that states “abortions in the first trimester are legal” under any circumstances, for “Nothing and no one can *in any way permit* the killing of an innocent human being … Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or *permit* such an action.”

In this way they would contribute to the building up of a society that recognizes non-negotiable ethical principals as the only means of guaranteeing the “ethical foundation of social coexistence”(1, 2), protect against the eventual deteriorating of civil law due to the slippery slope of relativistic legislation, and thus save the lives that would fall victim to this prolongation of the abortion regime.

Finally, death is not the worst evil in our midst. Grave sin is the worst evil. And while the “end result” in immediate terms might seem the same for either example of wording, we must have good means to good ends, and a bill which permits abortion remains “intrinsically unjust” and it is therefore “never licit to … vote for it”(4).

God Bless,

Patrick Delaney

(1) “Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society” (Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, CDF).

(2) “In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence, both on the national and international levels.” (JPII, VS, 97)

(3) “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law…” (Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, CDF).

(4) “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’”(Bl. John Paul II, EV, 73.2).

You used the word “explicit” twice, so it must be important. Yet, an incremental legislation either explicitly or implicitly permits “the direct killing of a subset of innocent human beings.” The same incremental law can achieve the same end whether the lives it fails to spare are explicitly or implicitly targeted. Does the “objective moral order” demand semantic parsing in this way before one can act to save human lives?

I liked your rhetorical question, Patrick. Here’s one for you: Say you know for certain that abortion will never be banned entirely — only incremental laws would forever be passed. Whereas a legislation that reads “abortion in the second and third trimester is outlawed” may be preferable to one that reads “abortions in the first trimester are legal, but all others are outlawed” based on the implicit vs. explicity permissions they give to kill (although their effects on human lives would likely be the same), would not BOTH laws be preferable to one that said “all abortions are legal?”

Thank you for posting my previous response.

If I may follow-up, I simply offer that the interpreting of any teaching of the Church must stand in continuity with the rest of the Church’s teaching. Nowhere does Bl. John Paul II, or the Catholic Church teach that one can vote for a bill which explicitly permits the direct killing of the innocent, under any circumstances. Here are a few more points to consider:

First, in addition to the quote on legislation which immediately precedes your quote, section 57 of EV quotes an earlier document which states, “Nothing and no one can *in any way permit* the killing of an innocent human being … Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or *permit* such an action.” Exceptions in legislation clearly “permit the killing of an innocent human being.” Would not your interpretation seem to contradict this teaching as well?

Secondly, a rhetorical question to help better illustrate the point: In a situation where abortion is fully legal, can a Catholic in right conscience support any of the following bills?
(a.) “All abortions are banned except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.”
(b.) “All abortions are banned except in cases where the fetus is of African American and Jewish decent.”
(c.) “All abortions are banned except for the case of Jesus Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

Which of these laws can a Catholic legislator support with a clear conscience, and please identify any essential moral distinctions between them.

Thirdly, exceptions in legislation have been a destructive force in the pro-life movement because they surrender the entire objective moral order in favor of relativism (i.e. “choice”). Exceptions reinforce and perpetuate the falsehood that the preborn child is *not* a human being—a person with inalienable human rights—and that human life in general is indeed a negotiable political issue which can be decided by those in power. With such a premise, abortion on demand becomes a logical conclusion. As stated by Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International, “In *every one* of the 56 countries that now (1997) have abortion on demand, the first step the pro-abortion forces took was intense lobbying for abortion in the so-called ‘hard cases’—the mother’s life and health, fetal deformity (eugenics) and / or rape and incest … Once the pro-abortionists secure abortion for any of the ‘hard cases,’ they point out the ‘inconsistency’ in the laws in order to justify abortion on demand” (emphasis in original text).

Exceptions ensure the perpetuation of the “Dictatorship of Relativism” which is the essential philosophy for the culture of death and, indeed, totalitarianism.

To be clear, again, incremental legislation is good and fine, so long as it does not explicitly violate the fundamental precepts of the natural moral by, say, explicitly permitting the direct killing of a subset of innocent human beings.

There is much more to say, but not in this limited forum.

Thanks again for allowing me to comment.

Sincerely in Christ,

Patrick Delaney

The statement by John Paul II is so perfectly clear that it needs no translation. It stands on its own as I have presented it.

Dr. Nadal is incorrect…still. You tried making this point a couple years ago.

You talk about incrementalism like people talk about stem cells. Are you talking about adult stem cells, or embryonic stem cells? You’re too general in your use of incrementalism as Delany makes clear.

If you read the entire context of this part PjPII’s encyclical you ought to conclude that an elected official cannot support an unjust (or illicit per Delany) law. There is principled incrementalism that limits and evil and unjust incrementalism that gives legitimacy to some evil.

A law banning abortions with exceptions for rape/incest is unjust and does not fit with what JPII is teaching. If this were true then there would be no justification for opposing a law that bans abortion with exceptions for black babies. As silly as that sounds, you could support such a law since it fits within the principle of your argument.

A law that bans second and third trimester abortions, though it is limiting an evil because it doesn’t ban first trimester abortions, is justifiable and could be supported by the elected official. If that same ban was written with exceptions carved out for rape/incest, that law now specifies who CAN be aborted and cannot be supported by the elected official.

I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. I’m delighted Patrick knows this.

Besides the gal with the heart valve, there are sometimes cases of cancer being discovered early in a pregnancy where it may not be wise to delay treatment until 23-34 gestational weeks for delivery. And there may be events such as an ascending aortic aneurysm that can require immediate surgical intervention.

Fortunately, most of these things don’t usually occur during to reasonably healthy women in their childbearing years, but, of course, they can.

I would guess if abortions were only permitted to save the life of the mother, there would maybe be about 1,000 per year? Certainly it would be a small fraction of what takes place now.

Your perception and reasoning on this argument is pretty wide-spread, and, indeed I shared it myself at one time.

However, after studying it further, including writing a masters thesis on it, I came to a different conclusion.

Incremental legislation is perfectly permissible and encouraged when it is not possible to completely prohibit such a crime as abortion. However, there are two types of incremental legislation: 1.) Incremental legislation that *does not* explicitly permit abortion, and 2.) Incremental legislation that *does* explicitly permit abortion.

The former category is licit, the latter, illicit, because no human authority can legitimately permit the killing of the innocent, for this would violate the natural moral law.

And Blessed John Paul II’s treatment of this question in Evangelium Vitae, which you cite above, is perfectly compatible with this consistent teaching of the Church.

Please look-up the quote you cited above in the actual document and observe the one-sentence paragraph which immediately precedes your citation. It states:

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.’”

A bill with an exception for children conceived in rape is “intrinsically unjust” because it explicitly “permits abortion.” When can a legislator vote for it? “Never.” This is a moral absolute, meaning there are no circumstances in which this can be done. Such a vote would be evil by its object.

This paragraph is clearly the fundamental legislative principal which provides for the correct interpretation of the paragraph that follows and is broadly cited (alone) as supporting the view expressed in your column here.

I would thus assert (with complete confidence) that the perspective you offer, though held by many, remains erroneous. And hence, if a bill grants explicit permission to kill the innocent, as bills with exceptions certainly do, it remains illicit to obey it, “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.” And this is the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Incremental legislation is fine so long as it doesn’t give permission to violate the fundamental precepts of the natural moral law which the Church also refers to as “non-negotiable ethical principles.”

God Bless,

Patrick Delaney

She did abort, and as much as I am anti-abortion, this is a case of the mother’s life being in jeopardy.

I think this is justifiable even though I don’t particularly like it. There are very few things that can put a mother’s life in jeopardy, but if something catastrophic is diagnosed in the mother, early in pregnancy, and she can’t continue to the point where the baby can be delivered (23-24 weeks?) because treatment cannot be delayed, abortion should be an option.

Robert, Good to hear from you again. Because we can take babies through C-section at a very early age, there is no condition left as regards life of the mother that isn’t covered by the principle of double-effect. If you have some in mind, please share them so we can discuss them.