July 1973

FRENCH BISHOPS CONDONE ABORTION

On 20th June the Permanent Secretariat of the French Hierarchy published its Statement on abortion. It is made clear in the Introduction that it is "the Church" which "joins in the discussion" occasioned by the proposed revision of the law of 1920. So the Church is putting her case? "There is no question, of course, of its having changed its well-known position concerning abortion. It continues to uphold this, clearly and firmly."

The Bishops’ Statement, then, rejects abortion, absolutely and unconditionally? And if that is so, why is there enough in the new declaration to fill a whole news page of La Croix on 23rd June? Because "it is the duty of the Church to remind Catholics and public opinion in general that, over and above its political, social and technical aspects, the issues at stake in this debate are concerned with tomorrow’s men and tomorrow’s society."

So the Church continues to uphold her "position". Not her Law, the God-made Natural Law revealed in the Decalogue, but her "well-known position"... Having said this, our Permanent Secretariat takes care to put between parentheses – and before long to forget all about – the moral and religious aspects of this "position", retaining thereafter only certain human and earthly considerations. It is clear that for our bishops the debate is primarily a political one, also involving, however, certain cultural and humanitarian values, which are not directly concerned with religion at all; a debate between men, aimed at settling a "human problem" by a free discussion, the outcome of which will have a serious influence upon the earthly future of mankind. With this, the "position" of the Church has been quietly downgraded from one which consisted in upholding an absolute and unchangeable Law of God, to a mere viewpoint, open to discussion. No reference to the salvation of the souls of the abortionists who refuse to obey this Divine Law – their salvation and that of their accomplices, direct or indirect – journalists, parliamentary deputies – or bishops! Abortion is no longer a crime beyond all dispute, which allows for no exceptions. The law is no longer unassailable; the possibility of modifying it has been accepted already. The life of a baby in its mother’s womb is no longer a sacred reality, but an "issue", a subject under discussion. What is at stake is "tomorrow s men and tomorrow’s society" and not that most helpless of individuals, the unborn child.

Our bishops have moved into the debate which deals with the life of these innocents, but they approach the theme from the viewpoint of Man and not of God, nor of course from that of the child to be killed. In thus dismissing God – He is mentioned only once and then, as we shall see, in support of the crime! – in leaving out Jesus Christ and all that pertains to the supernatural – the Sacraments and the life of grace, the fundamental moral and religious truths of sin and Redemption, personal merit and charity towards our fellows, self-denial and sacrifice – our bishops have dropped all that gave a noble grandeur to the Catholic Church’s absolute NO to the killing, whether within or outside the civil law, of babies already born or to be born, to every form of killing of innocents. So deeply entrenched are they in their cult of man – for all practical purposes a form of atheism – that they can give us nothing better than a discourse worthy of Masons, based entirely on human, cultural, and political values which would reject abortion-on-demand while at the same time giving a qualified assent to abortion under certain limited conditions. It cannot be long before this merges into the acceptance – even if "with reservations" – of more generalised abortion.

The Responsibility involved in changing the Laws

When our bishops set out to devalue a divine law and turn it into a subject for public debate, in which the demands of human passion are the likely winners) they do so in the name of the social sciences. To quote a frequent remark of Mgr Ancel: "Regardless of whether it is good or bad, it is a fact." And as we all know, it is a golden rule of the post-Conciliar Church to accept the fait accompli as the Will of God.

They begin by "stating the facts": "A considerable proportion of the French population remains opposed to abortion or rejects it with repugnance out of hand. We must nevertheless realise that in this matter there is a constantly widening gap between law on the one hand and custom on the other." There is, they tell us, "a discrepancy between what is prescribed and the facts of life..."

Do you see how crime is beginning to be promoted into virtue? "Termination of pregnancy", the killing of the unborn child in other words, is transformed from the crime and mortal sin which it has been hitherto, into a matter of "custom", into one of the "facts of life" which have to be taken into account in the present situation. The implication is that it is time to bring the legislation into line with such "customs" or "facts of life", whereas on the contrary, the divine moral law – as well as the basic rules of civilisation – would require that when a law against crime is being breached with increasing frequency, the duty of the authorities, civil or religious, is to enforce the law and preach the corresponding virtue with every means available, including that of increasing the penalties. But for our bishops, more concerned about democracy than about Christianity, about humanism than humanity, the law is at fault once it comes to be habitually broken. So it is the law which they want to change, rather than human beings!

The next thing to note is that they look upon the game as already lost, and are concerned merely with putting as good a grace as they can upon the impending new law: "Whatever the ultimate form it takes, it will express a certain philosophy of human existence... showing up the communal conscience for better or for worse." In any case, "the legislators are bound to make their decision on the basis of respect for human life." Not inviolability, mind you, but respect! The new law shall not be a matter of simply authorising (still less, forbidding!) the killing of innocents. It will have to stress that life is deserving of respect, and always preferable to death; and that killing is always an evil – though not always forbidden or avoidable, but definitely a sign of failure.

"A work of death can never be a success, or in any way a good thing." This new term "work of death" was a lucky hit, for it makes it so simple to eliminate the distinction between murder and lawful killing for reasons of self-defence, justice, or war. "Regardless of the identity of the victim or of the agent, regardless of the motive or of the means used." The subordinate clause stands alone, without a principal, and this seems to have been done deliberately. For if it is taken to refer to the preceding sentence, then it formally contradicts the teaching of the Church by including even the most lawful forms of killing in its somewhat hazy condemnation. If on the other hand it refers to the succeeding sentence, then it applies only to abortion, and in this case its condemnation is far too lukewarm: "Every induced abortion means a failure, an evil and a misfortune." So the three phrases, taken together, tell us that every "work of death" is an evil and a misfortune, but not necessarily forbidden. Self-defence, war, and judicial killing are thereby blackened, while abortion is whitewashed, and sin and virtue are absorbed into an indifferent grey which includes also the class of "unavoidable evils" that need entail no sin.

Following Humanae Vitae, our bishops had scored a great hit with their new casuistry – an evil which was not a sin – or an act papally evil but episcopally permissible! "Contraception can never be a good thing. It is always a disorder, but such a disorder is not necessarily sinful. There are cases where married people are faced with genuine conflicts of duty... In this context we shall simply recall the constant moral teaching that, where one is faced with alternatives each of which entails an evil, one is required to ask oneself before God which duty is the greater." Today the same type of reasoning serves to justify abortion!

In certain circumstances, therefore, they regard it as permissible for children to be killed in their mothers’ womb – but it is most important to point out, nevertheless, that such a thing is sad and evil, that it represents a failure. "In extending the legal possibilities of abortion (they are accepting it as already inevitable) the legislators run the risk (sic) of appearing to encourage a lowering of the esteem (sic) in which human life is held." "What public opinion will notice most is not the restrictions which the law will place in its way, but the gesture (!) of extending the legal limits of abortion."

They are right to the extent that what people will notice is precisely the permission to kill. And what we notice in the Hierarchy’s Statement is also the permission to kill – given by the bishops themselves through the verbal tangle of edifying moral and cultural considerations which seek to limit the extent of the licence: Thou shalt kill, but in moderation!

Reasoning along lines similar to those they adopted with regard to contraception, they advise moderation, for, though not necessarily a sin in their eyes, abortion is still an "evil". "There is a risk, in practice, of a total liberalisation of abortion, such as would appear, in the eyes of many – among the young in particular – to amount to a permanent removal of all curbs and to a hallowing (sic) of the dissociation of sex and love on the one hand, from procreation on the other. (Does marriage not come into it, Your Lordships?) It would thus carry a risk, the extent of which is difficult to assess in advance, of seriously lowering the moral conscience of the nation." If you judge by the bishops, there isn’t much moral conscience left here anyway!

So it is accepted that the new legislation will permit abortion in certain cases. Moreover, "the preservation of human life is not necessarily the last word". They would, however, like the law to make it clear that life is preferable to death, that "respect for all forms of life" is one of the great achievements of the modern conscience, and that, "among these forms, one of the most undeniable is respect for the child, before as well as after birth."

It is therefore with the greatest respect and the most profound regret that we must set about killing the child. On no account must therapeutic abortion (which they seem to be taking for granted!) be made to appear a success: "It would be futile to pretend that it in any way enhances our mastery over life... On the contrary, abortion is a constant reproach to us – it is the dramatic price we have to pay for deficiencies in our medical knowledge and achievements." With this, they have placed abortion among the whole range of therapeutic tragedies which – though unavoidable today – should eventually be eliminated as a result of advances in preventive and curative medicine.

Induced abortion for other reasons also is to be authorised, but this must on no account be looked upon as a happy outcome of love! "For the mother, for the married couple, as for society itself, abortion is necessarily a sign of distress – physical, psychological, affective, economic or moral. Whatever the method used for expelling the foetus, however well-controlled, rapid and convenient (such use of technical language makes me shudder), we must not forget that we are face to face with a form of human failure, whether individual or collective. Any other way of presenting abortion would be totally misleading." Its presentation as first and foremost a sin is clearly excluded! And it is clear from this that the bishops are prepared to accept abortion on psychological and economic grounds also – so long as there is no "abuse".

And who is to decide? The individual conscience: "Every decision regarding abortion must in the first place concern a conscience." Whose conscience? That of the person who does the killing? Or of the mother? Or of the father? And what about that of the poor little victim? The State must make the preliminary decision, regarding its compatibility with "the common good, which it has a duty to safeguard and promote." "It is the future of the political community which is at stake."

The "norm" must always be respect for life, and abortion must remain the lamentable exception. And, because there is a risk of a sudden lowering of moral standards of the population, the Church must bring to bear "her support... her sense of the human"! "That is why the Episcopate of France considers it to be its mission and its duty to bring the Church’s witness to bear on the issue."

We have quoted enough to denounce the French Episcopate as a gang of abortionists. Yes, it is they who bear the guilt. It is Cardinal Marty who deserves to be in prison in place of the women sentenced for having had abortions, and to remain there until he recants this Declaration.

The doctors, on the other hand, have put out their statement – the "Declaration of the Doctors of France" – signed, without any systematic lobbying, by 12,000 French medical practitioners, which states that "the deliberate termination of pregnancy for eugenic reasons, or in order to resolve a moral, economic, or social dilemma, is an act not befitting a doctor."

The legal profession too has spoken. 3,500 magistrates, advocates and professors of Law have made their protest against the proposed legislation which they refer to as "official permission to kill". They point out that it is not part of the law to make allowances for particular cases, but rather the duty of the judge to take into account – without condoning the crime – the personal tragedy which may have led to its commission. Those engaged in applying the law understand that the proposed legalisation of "the murder of innocent and defenceless beings" would undermine French Law and indeed be the ruin of human law and order as such.

Protests have come too from university teachers and students. The statement of the former entreats the authorities to refuse "legal permission to kill" and to prevent the establishment of a "mortal conflict between French law and the Moral Law".

The Association "Let-live" is making rapid headway in an attempt to alert public opinion before it is too late.

The Jewish Rabbis have protested, on the grounds that abortion is incompatible with that respect for life which is enshrined in Mosaic Law. The Rector of the Paris Mosque has-made a statement protesting that "abortion for whatever reason is condemned by Islam, which considers it to be a form of deliberate homicide and an unforgivable sin."

The CRC circles have published communiqués and sent telegrams to the Head of State, saying what it would have been the bishops’ duty to say, that God alone is the Author and Master of life, as of all things. Not a single one of the French bishops has taken it upon himself to assert the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith in this matter: that God alone rules over life and that the life of innocent beings especially belongs to Him; that to attack the life of an innocent is to commit murder; while he who sins thus against the justice and charity he owes to God as well as to his fellow man, merits everlasting damnation – and is thereby excommunicated from the Church until such time as he repents. There is no "conflict of duty", no circumstance of any sort that can ever serve to justify this intrinsically evil act.

The Bishops’ Statement was endorsed by every one of the French bishops. If you are still reluctant to believe that they are giving the public authorities the go-ahead to permit – in however limited a number of cases – the "interruption of pregnancy", then read the following:

"When the doctor, in certain particularly tragic cases, considers, as part of the exercise of the responsibility which belongs to him, that he has no alternative but to carry out an abortion, he does this in full consciousness of bringing about an act of death. It is ‘with death in his soul’ that he makes the decision (their Lordships do go in for gruesome play on words sometimes!), hoping against hope that tomorrow some new advance will spare him from having to make such an inhuman choice." (from para. 10 of the Statement)

Vatican II referred to abortion as an "abominable crime", but the bishops of France, even while supposedly putting forward the viewpoint of the Church, clearly admit it as justifiable under certain conditions. What makes them do it? We will now try to analyse the way their minds are working.

When they are talking about disarmament, nuclear weapons, strikes, or torture, they speak out with absolute authority against everything which is contrary to their private Gospel. No question then of recognising the right of others to hold contrary views. But when they are dealing with abortion or contraception, or with sex teaching in the schools, they will only put forward their opinion in a conciliatory manner, with due respect for different views. So they bring to bear on this issue (abortion) "the authoritative witness of the Church... convictions which are in line with certain basic needs engraved in every human being, whether or not this is consciously realised." They do not, however, claim for "the Catholic point of view" any greater authority than that of an opinion such as all are entitled to express: "We claim, in the name of that freedom of conscience to which all are entitled, the right as well as the duty of Catholics not to remain neutral in this debate: for it is concerned with human beings." But what about the Authority of the Church? "We are not seeking, in any way at all, to impose our own way of thinking. We are merely calling upon all to reflect on these issues, while fully respecting their liberty." Are we to understand that the Right to Kill has now been included among the Rights of Man, as forming part of that Religious Liberty to which all are entitled – in the context of the democratic and parliamentary Sovereignty of the People?

After this preamble, the bishops state "the Church’s teaching" on the matter: "The Church has always forbidden abortion." This bald statement is no doubt sufficient to satisfy some of our traditionalists who still remain unwilling to admit the bishops’ dishonesty. But mark well the reason given for the Church’s prohibition: because she upholds "a certain sense of the human", and supports that struggle against "a world filled with self-complacency" which shall "bring liberation to the poor and the oppressed". Their Lordships are against abortion – insofar as it represents a crime committed by feudal – or capitalist – oppressors against the poor! So it all falls into place in the context of the class struggle – of the defence of the poor against "Society".

But simultaneously, as part and parcel of this same struggle, they are ready to deliver the unborn child into the hands of the official executioners appointed by the Ministry of Health, even while protesting against a society which reduces the poor to such a necessity. For the responsibility, it appears, rests upon all of us collectively: "The present structure of our societies and the close solidarity linking their members has increased the extent to which we all share the responsibility for every induced abortion. We cannot escape this responsibility by saying that it is so great that nothing can be done about it or that our society is not yet ready to acknowledge it." And so on and so forth. In pretending that we are all guilty, they excuse those who actually perpetrate the crimes. "We cannot evade the paradox that our society which, so we are told, will be one of the most prosperous by 1980, has not been able to offer mothers faced with material distress any alternative other than abortion. As though the right of a woman to motherhood were not one of those basic rights which every nation must acknowledge." In other words, they are trying to tell us that it is the misery and constraints imposed upon them by society which are driving women – today, in France – to have their children killed in the womb! But they are only following the official party line put out in order to help the campaign to succeed. This means (1) legalising the abortions that are in fact taking place, so that, by bringing them out into the open, we may all be made aware of the desperation to which society has driven these unfortunate victims of oppression; (2) that, as a result of this awareness, society should insist on the radical social reforms which are deemed necessary to allow every woman to exercise her right to motherhood; and (3) that the government’s social "package deal"(*) should therefore be welcomed as a means of alleviating the moral distress of couples who can now opt for "life" rather than for a "work of death".

The French Catholic daily, La Croix, writes a propos the new legislation: "While extending the legal possibilities of abortion, the Government is concerned with limiting the extent of the damage through improving the social status of the mother." And, "The aim of the Ministry of Health is to remove certain of the restrictions upon abortion while seeking to fight it in other ways." The article then goes on to give details of various financial provisions to be made for mothers of families which are aimed at removing "the numerous material and psychological inducements to have an abortion."

Then there follows the information that "centres of contraception are to be set up in all public hospitals which at present have not the staff to supply such a service, with, in addition, 300 mobile units of contraception which are to spread information on matters relating to birth, and to operate in creches and factories employing female labour. Changes in medical education, so as to include problems of contraception, are also envisaged." We know that euphemism is the rule today in both State and Church, and in this instance abortion has been euphemistically included in the more general class of "contraception".

"In short, in view of the unacceptable conditions under which back street abortions are carried out, and of their unfortunate physical and psychological consequences, the Government has decided to make concessions, though, conscious of the dangers inherent in this new position, it is doing what it can to mitigate the dangers by taking certain measures which, had they been taken earlier, might have prevented the emergence of the problem..."

So there we are. Not a single word in this signed article on the front page of La Croix contains the least hint of criticism or disapproval – rather the reverse. Do we need further evidence that the bishops are behind the government in its proposals to change the legislation? Is it conceivable that La Croix would have published such an article if that were not the case?

In the first part of their Statement – you will remember – the bishops contend that legislation should be brought into line with the facts of life. So, when the government justifies its plan to legalise abortion by the secrecy under which it is at present being carried out, the bishops follow the same argument: "The secrecy under which abortion is today taking place... constitutes a scourge." The scourge, you will note, is not abortion itself, but only the secrecy! Therefore it can be eliminated quite simply, by making this legal – so that when, tomorrow, babies are thrown out by the bucketful, it will be not only with the help of Social Security, but with the blessing of the bishops. It was of course necessary to gloss over the facts with some fine words, purporting to recall the Catholic teaching – but only after this had been emptied of its substance and converted into what is a mere opinion among many others, all entitled to be heard and respected. That formed the second part of the Statement. As their Lordships do not wish even "legal" abortion to assume uncontrollable proportions, they follow this up by putting forward their remedy against such a danger – their universal panacea against all the ills afflicting mankind. This is nothing other than what we have been hearing over and over again these past ten years: DIALOGUE: "A woman who may be tempted to request an abortion needs in the first place an opportunity for a confidential interview where she can discuss her troubles with someone and be made to feel that she is not alone... Often this will be sufficient to restore her strength and give her the necessary courage to face the birth of a child. The Law must make provision for such an interview. This would nevertheless be illusory if in practice it were to become merely a necessary formality that must be gone through before an abortion could be authorised." Need we add that it is all too clear that this is precisely what will happen. Yet our bishops are insisting on putting all their hopes into this "qualified counsellor" who "cannot but exert a good influence and who, faced with the work of death which abortion needs must be, will strive to instil a positive sense of human existence..."

"A positive sense of human existence"? Is that really the best which our bishops are able to put forward as an argument against the killing of a child in its mother’s womb? But, regardless of their hopes from open "dialogue" or from any financial inducements which they expect to operate against too frequent abortion, they give the ultimate right over the life or death of their offspring to the human animals who have begotten it: "In the last resort, the definitive decision must belong to the woman – or rather – to the couple, for we should not forget the father’s responsibility in this matter." Just as in the days of paganism.

The conclusions to be drawn from the French Hierarchy’s intervention – in favour rather than against – the campaign for easy abortion will be discussed in our next issue. But in the meantime we may well ask whether, if parents have the right to kill their unborn children, we have not the right – in order to defend these from slaughter, and to safeguard the future of France – to kill our bishops who are turning into executioners.

(*) The proposed legalisation of abortion is included in a plan covering various aspects of social security legislation.

MYSTERIUM ECCLESIAE

God is intervening to rescue His Church... A Document recently published, emanating from what was formerly the Holy Office, has reaffirmed the unique nature of the Church, the Infallibility of the Pope, the special character of the Priesthood – all matters on which the German-Swiss theologian Hans Kung, against whose heresies the document seems evidently to be directed, has formally denied the Church’s teaching. Apart from our own particular concern with the question of heresy on the part of a Pope, we have been saying much the same things as we read in the Vatican document. If we leave out of account also its rather vague appeals to the Acts of Vatican II – which detract from its value – we must needs conclude that the authors of the Roman document still hold the same Faith as we – the Catholic Faith – and one which is quite different from that of Hans Kung and of a considerable number of bishops, theologians and priests.

Efforts are nevertheless being made to establish a false parallel between the two extreme ends of the scale represented by Hans Kung on the one hand and ourselves on the other. Thus the Rev. Congar, writing in Le Monde (13th July): "Intelligence they both have in plenty (i.e. H. Kung and G. de Nantes). But for a keen perception of the truth you must have, over and above this, ‘eyes which are lit up by the heart’. This too forms part of being truly Catholic." Congar considers it as self-evident that neither of the two theologians he mentions does have such "eyes lit up by the heart", while he, on the other hand, evidently possesses such a pair! An easy answer to the charges in the Roman document which are not without application to him also!

The arguments concerning the contents of the document are inevitably becoming bogged down, in accordance with the rules prevailing in the post-Conciliar Church headed by Paul VI, according to which the Satanic bond which unites all progressives regardless of their personal beliefs, must on no account be broken. Thus Kung is allowed to remain inside the Church, and to go on flaunting his insolence, even though he is a heretic, while we have been made the object of constant suspicion and defamation, despite the fact that we remain genuinely Catholic. In the Church of Paul VI there is no truth or justice.

And indeed, the following Sunday the Pope was at pains to show his favour to the modernist camp also, by referring to "two important acts of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church", the one being Mysterium Ecclesiae – which deserves to be referred to as such – while the other is that infamous discourse given by Casaroli at Helsinki, which is a humanistic, Masonic, Montinian medley of catch phrases not meriting serious consideration. It is a grave matter when the Supreme Authority in the Church treats as equally important the deepest truths and the most perfidious errors... Nevertheless, we must welcome this Document as providing evidence of continuing vigilance by Rome. Once we have another Pope, the Faith will begin to flourish again. Everything is ready for a new Spring, for a Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth Century. We shall witness it with our own eyes.

No 41	JULY 1973
ÉDITION MENSUELLE EN LANGUE ANGLAISE DE LA CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE AU XX^e SIÈCLE Editor : R. P. Georges de Nantes