Irene Alexander

Despite sincere attempts to interpret Evangelium vitae and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) of Catholic Health Care on direct versus indirect abortion, Catholic moral theologians docile to the magisterium and to Pope John Paul II's teaching remain divided on how the ERDs should be interpreted based on the meaning of the word "direct." The traditional natural law theory holds that the moral object in an indirect abortion involves not only that the abortion is unintended by the subject but also indirectly caused. The second and more novel interpretation referred to as the New Natural Law (NNL) theory is that an indirect abortion refers only to abortions which the acting person does not intend, whether or not he immediately causes them. Because the novel view bases its entire revision of the moral object by considering only "the perspective of the acting person", a key text in Veritatis splendor no. 78, they argue that they are being faithful to Pope John Paul II's teaching in Veritatis splendor (VS) no. 78. In this article I argue that their reasoning is based on a fundamental misreading of Veritatis splendor and that the Pope himself would reject their view, even though they quote him, because their interpretation contradicts the fundamental moral principles that Pope John Paul II himself lays out within the very same chapter of Veritatis splendor. Furthermore, when the foundations of the broader NNL theory are brought to light, it becomes clear that the fundamental mistake at the root of this disputed question is that the NNL theory interprets the magisterial documents of Pope John Paul II through their own philosophical method-a method of moral analysis not shared by Pope John Paul II or the magisterium. When this interpretive error is brought to light, and Pope John Paul II is read on his own terms, it is clear that a direct abortion involves any attack on the unborn child that the acting person immediately and physically causes. Summary: The disputed question in Catholic health care concerning what constitutes a direct and indirect abortion can be resolved by examining the foundational differences of both the New Natural Law theory with the traditional natural law theory. Once these differences are brought to light, it is clear that the NNL has reinterpreted the meaning of the word "direct" based on a meaning that the magisterium has never accepted as a licit one for defining intrinsically evil acts. Furthermore, NNL thinkers misread Pope John Paul in Veritatis splendor 78 by applying their own novel methodology to the text. When this interpretive error is brought to light, it is clear that a direct abortion involves any attack on the unborn child that the acting person immediately and physically causes.

I argue that the Council Fathers' universal call to holiness in Lumen Gentium cannot be understood apart from their simultaneous call for renewing both moral theology and priestly theological studies according to the sapiential theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Excessive fragmentation in theological study causes a narrow vision of morality as merely doing the minimum requirements and avoiding sin, and thus the faithful lose sight of the moral life as a beatify-ing call to sanctity and communion with God. I argue that careful attention not only to ST I. q. 93 but also to the structure of the Summa as a whole reveals that Aquinas already presumes a universal call to holiness rooted in the identity of the imago Dei in every man inscribed at creation, and in the vocation of all Christians to perfect that image by living a holy life. Because Aquinas's teaching is rooted deeply in the Scriptures as well as in the patristic tradition , his teaching on man's call to perfect the divine image through transformation and communion with God deeply resonates with Vatican II's Lumen Gentium.

The main reason for the widespread dissent from Humanae vitae is not primarily academic. Rather, dissent arises first on a practical level by couples themselves on account of the difficulty they experience in living out the teaching. More specifically, couples often feel that there is a "contradiction" between the responsible regulation of birth and the unity of their love. This essay addresses this pastoral objection head on through a candid appreciation of the "difficulties" couples experience and through demonstrating Pope John Paul II's idea of cultivating a "conjugal spirituality," which moves couples interiorly from merely following rules to fostering reverence both for one's spouse and for God. Summary: This article provides a pastoral response to the difficulties of living out the teaching of Humanae vitae, by explaining the teaching of Humanae vitae through the lens of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Specifically, I explain John Paul II's exhortation to couples to develop a "conjugal spirituality" through the virtues, so that they will grow in reverence for their spouse and for God.

Theologians both for and against embryo adoption are at an impasse with respect to how the CDF’s moral reasoning on artificial fertilization applies to the new issue of artificial impregnation. In order to advance the conversation on this issue, I believe it is necessary to reevaluate Donum vitae and Dignitatis personae in order to draw out anew the crux of their moral reasoning. Neither side of the debate has explicitly articulated the underlying unity between artificial fertilization and artificial impregnation. In order to see the moral coherence that both are illicit, it is necessary to grasp with clarity the logic of the former at its root, and then see how it applies to the latter. In this article I argue that artificial impregnation is opposed to the unity of marriage because it usurps the agency of impregnation proper and exclusive to the spouses themselves.

Some Catholic theologians are redefining the meaning of " direct " and " indirect " by including only the agent's intention in defining the moral object, while simultaneously excluding the physical actions that the agent consciously and deliberately chooses. The net effect is that these theologians now approve of many kinds of abortions traditionally understood to be morally evil in situations of maternal–fetal vital conflict. Such an error has grave implications for Catholic bioethics and health care. When the intentionalist method is applied to other disputed questions in bioethics, however, it becomes clear that its ideology is fundamentally erroneous. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17.3 (Autumn 2017): 399–408.