[DE CRANIOTOMIA ET ABORTU]
RESPONSE OF THE HOLY OFFICE
MAY 31, 1889, ff.
[excerpts]


[Ex Resp. S. Off. ad archiepisc. Lugdun., 31. Maii 1889 (28. Maii. 1884).]
[From the Response of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Lyons, May 31st, 1899 (May 28, 1884)]
Ad dubium: << An tuto doceri possit in scholis catholicis, licitam esse operationem chirurgicam, quam craniotomiam applellant, quando scilicet, ea omissa, mater et infans perituri sint, ea e contra admissa, salvanda sit mater, infante pereunte? >>
To the question: Whether it can be safely taught in Catholic schools that the surgical operation which is called craniotomy is licit, when, of course, if it does not take place, the mother and child will perish; while on the other hand, if it does take place, the mother is to be saved, while the child perishes?
Responsum est: << Tuto doceri non posse >>.
The reply is: "It cannot be safely taught."


[Ex Resp. S. Officii ad archiepisc. Cameracens, 19. Aug. 1889]

[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambrésis, August 19, 1889]
Similiter responsum est cum addito: << . . . et quamcunque chirurgicam operationem directe occisivam foetus vel matris gestantis >>.
The reply is similar with the following addition: ". . . and every surgical operation that directly kills the fetus or the pregnant mother."



[Ex Resp. S. Officii ad archiep. Camerac., 24/25. Iul. 1895]

[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambrésis, July 24, 25, 1895]
Titius medicus, cum ad praegnantem graviter decumbentem vocabatur, passim animadvertebat, lethalis morbi causam aliam non subesse praeter ipsam praegnationem, hoc est foetus in utero praesentia. Una igitur, ut matrem a certa atque imminenti morte salvaret, praesto ipsi erat via, procurandi scilicet abortum seu foetus eiectionem. Viam hanc consueto ipse inibat, adhibitis tamen mediis et operationibus, per se atque immediate non quidem ad id tendentibus, ut in materno sinu foetum occiderent, sed solummodo ut vivus, si fieri posset ad lucem ederetur, quamvis proxime moriturus, utpote qui immaturus omnio adhuc esset.
When the doctor, Titius was called to a pregnant woman who was seriously sick, he gradually realized that the cause of the deadly sickness was nothing else than pregnancy, that is, the presence of the fetus in the womb. Therefore, to save the mother from certain and imminent death one way presented itself to him, that of procuring an abortion, or ejection of the fetus. In the customary manner he adopted this way, but the means and operations applied did not tend to the killing of the fetus in the mother's womb, but only to its being brought forth to light alive, if it could possibly be done, although it would die soon, inasmuch as it was not mature.
Iamvero lectis, quae die 19. Augusti 1889 Sancta Sedes ad Cameracenses archiepiscopos rescripsit: tuto doceri non posse lictiam esse quancumque operationem directe occisivam foetus, etiam si hoc necessarium foret ad matrem salvandam: dubius haeret Titius circa liceitatem operationem chirurgicarum, quibus non raro ipse abortum hucusque procurabat, ut praegnantes graviter aegrotantes salvaret.
Yet despite what the Holy See wrote on August 19th, 1889, in answer to the Archbishop of Cambrésis, that it could not be taught safely that any operation causing the death of the fetus directly, even if this were necessary to save the mother, was licit, the doubting Titius clung to the licitness of surgical operations by which he not rarely procured abortion, and thus saved pregnant women who were seriously sick.
Quare, ut conscientiae suae consulat, supplex Titius petit: Utrum enuntiatas operationes in repetitis dictis circumstantiis instaurare tuto possit.
Therefore, to put his conscience at rest Titius suppliantly asks: Whether he can safely repeat the above mentioned operations under the reoccurring circumstances.
Responsum est: Negative, iuxta alia decreta, diei scilicet 28. Maii 1884 et 19. Augusti 1889.
The reply is: In the negative according to other decrees, namely, of the 28th day of May, 1884, and of the 19th day of August 1889.
Sequenti vero feria V, die 25. Iulii . . . Sanctissimus Deus noster relatam sibi Emorum Patrum resolutionem approbavit.
But on the following Thursday, on the 25th day of July . . . our most holy Lord approved a resolution of the Most Emminent Fathers, as reported to him.


[Ex Responso S. Officii Decan. facult. theol. Universit. Marianopol., 5. Martii 1902.]

[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Marienburg, the 5th day of March, 1902]
Ad dubium: << Utrum aliquando liceat e sinu matris extrahere foetus ectopicos adhuc immaturos, nondum exacto sexto mense post conceptionem? >>
To the question: "Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not yet passed?"
Responsum est: << Negative, iuxta Decretum feria IV, 4. Maii 1898, vi cuius foetus et matris vitae, quantam fieri potest, serio et opportune providendum est; quoad vero tempus, iuxta idem Decretum, Orator meminerit, nullam partus accelerationem licitam esse, nisi perficiatur tempore ac modis, quibus ex ordinarie contingentibus matris ac foetus vitae consulatur. >>
The reply is: "In the negative, according to the decree of Wednesday, the 4th of May, 1898, by the force of which care must be taken seriously and fittingly, insofar as it can be done, for the life of the fetus and that of the mother; moreover, with respect to time, according to the same decree, the orator is reminded that no acceleration of the birth is licit, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered."



Source: β
Source: δ
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1