60. On Homicide and Abortion

1. Sempronius, wearied of his wife, made espousals with another. Wherefore, in order to free himself from his present wife, while she was on a journey, in a certain solitary place, he pierced her with a bullet; and seeing her as though struggling with death, he commanded his servant, whom he had taken with himself as a companion of the journey, under penalty of death to be inflicted immediately upon him likewise, to slaughter the still-breathing mistress with a sword, and without delay to commit her, slaughtered, to the earth.

Q. 1. Is homicide ever licit? 2. Could the servant in this case licitly obey his master?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 719 seqq., 736 seqq.; E. M. 722. - To the second. The servant could not obey his master by slaughtering the mistress with a sword; nevertheless he could licitly obey by committing her to the earth after death. The reason for the disparity is this: because to commit a dead woman to the earth is not evil, but rather good, or certainly indifferent of itself. But what is good, or at least indifferent, we licitly do from a just and grave end, namely that of escaping death or another grave evil threatened to us. On the contrary, to slaughter an innocent person was evil, intrinsically such, forbidden by natural and divine right. But an evil intrinsically such may never be committed, however grave a fear of death may impend over us. - Elbel, De Act. hum. 43.

Hence another case is resolved: whether, at the time of the Paris Commune, and generally, whether in a time of anarchy, regular soldiers of the preceding Government, from fear of death, could fire upon religious, clerics, and honest citizens, and slaughter them. Altogether negatively, since neither by private nor by public authority is it licit to kill the innocent. And this is intrinsically evil; and accordingly it remains evil even when most grave fear of death stands.

2. "The Catholics of this diocese are inexorable in vengeance, and this because there is no one in those regions who administers justice. Therefore it is asked: 1. Whether, every other means of obtaining redress for their wrongs being excluded, Christians can consider themselves with respect to this point as if they were in the natural state. 2. Whether they are capable of the sacraments so long as they persist in this desire of vengeance. The reason which they bring forward to prove the necessity in which they are of avenging themselves is that the killer and his supporters would become fiercer and more intolerable against the relatives of the killed man, and would commit new homicides, if these did not resist and did not oppose force to force.

R. Negatively to each part." S. C. de P. F., 21 May 1759; Collectan., n. 2092, 2094, 2098.

3. A popular disturbance having been made in a certain great city, the Prince is expelled, and Anarchy is proclaimed for several weeks. Meanwhile thieves and highway robbers commit thefts, robberies, and homicides with impunity. Carolus, a powerful and honest man, judging that crimes ought to be punished, in order to protect honest citizens, public authority being lacking, himself assumes this office for himself. Hence, when he hears that either thefts and robberies or homicides have been committed by someone, judging that no other punishment in the present circumstances is possible and efficacious except the punishment of death, by night he himself with his servants kills thieves and homicides. And the matter always succeeds prosperously for them, so that it is altogether unknown by whom they were killed. What of Carolus?

R. Carolus acts altogether badly. For he himself has no power of exercising public vindication of crimes, since he has no authority in civil society. But citizens, for protecting themselves, can rightly use, if thieves and homicides attack them, the natural right of defense, repelling force by force, with the moderation of blameless defense. For indeed, "to kill evildoers is licit insofar as it is ordered to the safety of the whole community; and therefore it belongs only to him to cut off a rotten member, when the care of the safety of the whole body has been committed to him. But the care of the common good is committed to Princes, having public authority, and therefore it is permitted only to them to kill evildoers, not to private persons." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 64, a. 3. Nor indeed does it avail to object from the same Holy Doctor, ibid., q. 108, a. 1, that vindication is a virtue of a private person, and accordingly that it is also permitted to private persons at least to avenge injuries inflicted on themselves. For it is singular in this virtue of vindication that the person who is the subject of the virtue cannot through himself consummate the proper action of that virtue because of the necessity of the matter; because namely its matter is the evil of punishment, which requires coercive power in the author; and accordingly, although vindication is a virtue of a private person, nevertheless a private person cannot consummate his action unless public power is joined, on account of the condition of the matter to be rendered, namely the evil of punishment for the evil of the inflicted injury. Cajetan, in l. c. Cf. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 66, a. 8.

4. Gaspar, a physician, gave a drug to a certain woman to impede conception, namely in order that he might remove the most grave danger of death which he knew from experience threatened her; and accordingly he intended this only, that is, to procure her safety. But that woman, already made pregnant, is in reality placed in the highest danger of life, together with the offspring, which consequently would die without baptism together with the mother. Hence Gaspar, in order to save the mother from death and to procure baptism for the offspring, at the suitable time procures abortion by medical art. And thus the mother is in reality saved, and the offspring, having come forth alive, dies only after baptism.

Q. 1. Is it licit to procure abortion? 2. Has Gaspar acted rightly?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 742 seqq.; E. M. 742, 745; Comment. Theolog. Moral., fifth commentary, De Procuratione Abortus; sixth commentary, De Responso S. Officii circa craniotomiam.

To the second. Gaspar first sinned gravely by impeding generation, which in reality he himself intended, although he illusorily asserts that he intended only to procure the woman's safety. He indeed intended this as an end; but as a means to obtaining that end, he assumed this means: to impede generation by a drug, whence the woman's safety, from asserted experience, was being brought into danger. Therefore he intended this also. G. 400.

Gaspar also sinned gravely by directly procuring abortion, which from its intrinsic nature is true homicide. Nor indeed can he be excused from the excellent end of saving the mother and baptizing the offspring; for evils must not be done so that goods may come. But in the case the abortion is procured directly; for abortion is assumed and is intended in itself as the means to each. G. 400 seqq.

Hence Gaspar, on account of the direct procurement of abortion, incurs the excommunication reserved to bishops from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. Moreover, he becomes irregular; for since the question concerns a fetus which is so harmful to the health of the mother, it cannot be doubted that it is now informed by a rational soul. Cf. I. M. V. 2, n. 1204, 1335.

5. Hortensia, pregnant and now near birth, seized by a grave disease in the West Indies, dies. Richardus, a new missionary, judging himself obligated to perform the Caesarean operation, soon carries it out and baptizes the offspring still alive, which then continues to live. But as soon as the matter is made known, he is nearly slaughtered by the inhabitants of the place as the murderer of the mother. Immediately Richardus flees, and no further report of him is had in that place.

Q. 1. Whether and when can the Caesarean operation be done, and what precautions are there in practice? 2. Has Richardus acted rightly?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. V. 2, 469 seqq. - To the second. Richardus did not act rightly. For, as appears from the case itself, the most grave danger of scandal was not lacking. Besides, there is the prohibition made to missionaries by the decree of the Holy Office, 15 Feb. 1760. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 471.

If, the mother now being dead, the Caesarean operation cannot be done, then the infant in the mother's womb can be baptized in the best way in which it can be done, namely by the aid of a small siphon or another instrument by which the infant in the maternal womb may be reached and water poured upon it. Hence, by the aid of an instrument of this sort, the membranes in which the fetus is enveloped must be cut, so that the water may immediately reach the fetus. This operation is easy and can rightly be done by a midwife or by another woman. - If, as is gathered from the case, a surgeon or another skilled man was truly lacking for carrying out the Caesarean operation, Gaspar could have procured that baptism be administered to the infant through some experienced woman in the way said. - G. v. 2, 218, 220; Gennari, Consultazioni, etc., p. 1, cons. 21.