jections to abortion from taking part in such operations except when the life of the woman is endangered.

Whether or not the fetus is, in fact, a human person from the moment of conception, or whether it becomes a human person sometime afterward during the 9-month period of development is the point at issue in the abortion dilmma. Bernard Haring, C.S.S.R., the dean of Catholic moral theologians insists in "The Law of Christ", p. 205; "And in fact, if we could assume that the Aristotalian opinion were certain, we could not condemn abortion committed before the infusion of the spiritual soul as a crime of murder against a fully human life." Richard A. McCormick, S. J., in an article in America, June 19, 1965, on abortion says: "The theory of retarded or delayed animation is unquestionably a tenable and respectable theory. It is still preferred by a notable number of philosophers and theologians. The church has very wisely never decided the matter definitly; indeed, it is perhaps questionable if this is within her competence.

It seems to me it is certainly not within the church's competence to pronounce one way or the other on a matter that requires an interpretation of biological facts on which from ancient times to the present, good women and men of all faiths have disagreed. This being the case-but even if it were not-that a doubt of fact regarding the human personhood of the fetus exists, the same rules of morality must be applied here as in all other cases.

The most fundamental rule of morality is, as Jesus explained to the lawyer, the love of God above all else and the love of our neighbor whom we are commanded to love as we love ourselves. These two commandments are the essence of the New Law of Christ, as St. Thomas says, as well as the foundation and first general principles of the natural law. [Summa Theologies I-II, Q. 109, B.] We are bound, after God, to love ourselves, and then, our neighbors, not equally with ourselves, but in a manner patterned on true love of self. We should love especially those nearest to us in the natural order, our spouses, children, parents, et cetera. The secondary principles of the natural law such as the Ten Commandments are simply explicitations of these primary rules.

The fifth commandment has always been interpreted to mean not absolute prohibition of killing a person, but the unjustified taking of life. Father Haring in the same work mentioned earlier explains it this way: "The killing of a man, is not an unconditional evil action because the bodily life of one's neighbor is not a value which must be preserved under all circumstances. Only the unjustified attack on the life of one's neighbor is always evil."

Christian theologians have always permitted the just war, and in fact they have hung medals on those who have participated in war, even though war certainly results in the foreseen killing and horrible maiming of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of innocent human persons outside the womb, including infants, children, women, and men of all ages. I might point out the American Catholic hierarchy never raised a voice-with the exception of perhaps one or two, about the immorality of the war in Vietnam.

Popes have lead armies to war. Hierarchies have condoned hundreds of wars, as the American hierarchy did the war in Vietnam. All this wholesale slaughter of the innocent as well as the enemy, is

and was justified in Catholic theology on the basis of the principle of the double effect. Despite the most atrocious method of killing such as bombs, mapalm, flame-throwers, antipersonnel weapons, the American Catholic hierarchy never have raised their voice against the immorality of such weapons. Thus when a pilot dropped a bomb, knowing that hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be killed with the enemy, theologians said he must simply intend the death of the enemy, not the death of the innocent, even though he knows for certain that many, many innocent people will die as a direct result of his actions. The simple fact of the matter is, if the bomber pilot did not intend but certainly did not rejoice in, both the death of the innocent and the enemy he would not release the bomb from the hatch.

In short, the right to life, even of the innocent, while it is the most. basic right is not an unconditional right to be preserved at all costs. It can only be taken, justly but regrettably, under certain conditions; but it most certainly can be and has been taken, and the taking has been sanctioned and even lauded by Catholic theologians and the hierarchy from the earliest days of Christianity.

Catholic theologians can and do justify the taking of the life, or lives, of the innocent, on the basis of the principle of the double effect, in order to preserve some other human rights or values of equal or greater worth. Such values can be any of the following: for example, according to Catholic moral theology-and this is to be found in most theology texts-the preservation of freedom, in self defense in order to preserve your own life or another persons life; in defense of your personal liberty; in defense of your bodily integrity; for example, a woman as I pointed out in a televised debate used to teach students in religion at Villanova University, with the editor of the Catholic Standard and Times in Philadelphia-if a woman was about to be raped and decided she would rather go over a cliff than be raped-that justified her committing suicide.

So a person could, in order to preserve her/his bodily integrity, or even her/his own personal property, that is material goods, deemed necessary to life such as food, or even a horse-if that horse or food was essential to him/her or the family's well-being could take the life of the thief if necessary in order to keep the food and keep the horse which were so essential to life.

In view of these exceptions to the command, "Thou shall not kill", it seems to me for the reasons given in my testimony before the Pennsylvania board in Harrisburg, a woman may be justified in seeking an abortion from a physician.

Briefly, the reasons I hold this are the following. The purposes of marriage and the marital act are two fold, the fostering of mutual love between the spouses and the procreation and education of any children who may issue from the marriage. Of course procreation only binds when it is possible and reasonable. Procreation involves not only the physical begetting of a child, but also seeing that it is cared for and educated in truly humane fashion. It entails the bringing of one's children to a state of human perfection. However, through contraceptive failure-whether of rhythm or other artificial contraception-at this point Catholic women are most of all on the

57-782 O 76 - 14

firing line. We have five great daughters who are the product of rhythm, and very much loved children, whom sometimes we refer to as "Rhythmaires." Impregnation can occur without its being intended. Should impregnation occur to a woman who is so extremely poor, that neither she nor her husband, nor their existing children, can be supported in truly human fashion, the woman may be obliged in justice to herself, to her husband and to the potential rationality of the fetus to seek an abortion. Here, albeit innocently, the preg nancy constitutes a grave internal threat to the very existence of the family. That is, the common good of the family requires this tragic but necessary action.

Mental illness, severe enough to incapacitate the woman for human motherhood would also be in my judgment serious reason for termination of pregnancy. Every fetus by reason of its potential rationality is in justice entitled to a mother who is rational. Furthermore, the loss of the ability to use the highest powers she has, the reason and will, is a fearful enough loss in itself and pregnancy in addition to such a state constitutes a grave and often unbearable threat to the woman's total well-being.

Crippling physical disease would be sufficient reason for termination of pregnancy because the disease itself constitutes a grave internal threat to her health and life, to which the presence of the fetus adds further aggravation.

In the case of rape and incest, the resulting pregnancy has been inflicted unjustly and violently against the woman's or child's will by a violation of her right to physical integrity. She, therefore, has the right to remove by an abortion the result of this assault, out of love for herself.

The possibility of severe deformity in the fetus is sufficient reason to warrant an abortion also. Nature itself tends, as St. Thomas pointed out, bodily perfection and of itself, not by direct Divine intervention aborts in almost one-third of all pregnancies where the fetus is defective. Here we would be imitating the unconscious intelligence of the natural processes, consciously. As the late Dr. Joseph Stokes, the discoverer of the measles vaccine, a great pediatrician from Philadelphia, pointed out, many cases of monogolism with its severe mental retardation, and Tay-Sachs disease with its mental retardation can already be detected early in pregnancy by amniocentesis.

To sum up, we must say the pregnant woman is first of all a human being, herself, which was a doubtful condition in Christian theology as explained by celibate male theologians, with her own set of rights flowing from her own human nature. She doesn't lose her human rights by becoming pregnant. She should be regarded as the bearer of another as yet not fully human life, in the early months of pregnancy. As with every other human being, there are certain rights of which she is possessed and which she may defend out of charity and in justice to herself. Such rights are the right to life; to health, whether physical or mental; to liberty, whether spiritual or physical; to physical integrity; to those goods which are deemed essential to life. If a woman has additional obligations to a husband and existing children she may be strictly obliged in justice to seek an abor

tion in order to safeguard not only her life but also the well-being of her family, no matter how repugnant and heart rending this decision may be.

I, as an individual and as the representative of the Board of Directors for Catholics for a Free Choice, a national organization. of Catholics, am dedicated to the principle that women have the right and duty to follow their conscience in abortion decisions, and that the law has a corresponding right and duty to make it possible for them to implement their choices under medically safe conditions. In this respect we are wholeheartedly in favor of the Supreme Court decision and commend the Justices for their wisdom.

However, I would hasten to add that when abortions are performed, they should be followed by contraceptive counseling so as to provent if at all possible, the need for future abortions.

We consider abortion to be a serious moral problem and while we are not for abortion across the board, we nonetheless believe there are many serious reasons that could justify taking the life of the fetus. Such reasons we would consider, extreme poverty, mental illness, grave or crippling physical disease, rape, incest, the possibility of a deformed fetus, grave risk to the life of the mother. Another reason would be the positive unwillingness of the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, for I can think of nothing more detrimental to a human baby than to be born to a mother who hated its very existence.

Catholic women as well as non-Catholic women are driven to abortion, which is often their only recourse, as a last resort when contraception is denied them or fails to work effectively, as in the case of rhythm, especially.

Our hierarchy and priests and laity have an obligation in charity and justice to at least talk to these troubled women as sisters. With very rare and brave exceptions, like Father Joe O'Rourke, they haven't been doing it. It would also help matters considerably if Catholics would stop the un-Christian name calling and labeling everyone who disagrees with them as murderers and abortionists. and listen to the other side for a change. Right and reason have not always been on the Catholic side, as witness the ongoing contraception debate in the church. As the National Catholic Reporter stated on November 16, 1973, 88 percent of all Roman Catholics favor abortion when there is a danger to the mother's life or health, 75 percent in case of rape, and 77 percent in case of defective fetus.

So you see that our bishops are not the apolitical creatures they present themselves as being. Anyone in Congress or a State legislature is always very much aware of the political clout of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in which they are using money which is primarily donated by Catholic women to destroy the rights of Catholic women and other women here and elsewhere.

I thank you very much.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Dr. Cahill.

I hope you will forgive me if I don't take the time to resume this discussion further. I appreciate the fact that you have testified. We will recess these hearings now pending the call of the Chair for future hearings.

[Whereupon at 12:45 p.m. the hearings recessed, subject to call by the Chair.]

[Material for the record follows:]

TESTIMONY OF DR. JANE FURLONG-CAHILL, PH.D., DOCTOR OF RELIGION, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE

TESTIMONY AND INTRODUCTION OF DR. JANE CAHILL, BY REV. JOSEPH O'ROURKE My name is Father Joseph O'Rouke, Catholic Coordinator of the Interfaith a Free Choice. I am a priest recently dismissed from the Society of Jesus for a Free Choice. I am a priest recently dismissed fro mthe Society of Jesus for baptizing a child of a mother who stood publicly for the Supreme Court decision and for reproductive freedom.

The refusal of Boston priests to baptize this child, Nathaniel Ryan Morreale, shows the lengths a minority faction in the Catholic Church are willing to go to deny individual rights and community and church fellowship in order to preserve its power against the common good. This denial of religious liberty is to be deplored in the church and in our society, and I suppose, places our hierarchys' good citizenship in question. As my right to minister the Catholic sacraments for those who hold for reproductive freedom is threatened by my dismissal, so also is disclosed the commitment of American Cardinals to coerce conscience against the laws of the land and good sense. These actions further raise the question of the whole social strategy of the Catholic hierarchy, for they indicate a backing off from a commitment to individual liberty, free information and choice, equal medical and social services to all, placing the whole Catholic identity on a myopic anti-abortion stand; and this when 88% of the Catholics in the pew favor the choice of abortion under some circumstances.

If the Church was to stand sincerely against abortion, it would re-orient its social and relief services to stop the 100 spontaneous abortions for every 200 births in the Third World by attacking the malnutrition, poverty and medical ignorance that is the cause of this hidden plague, rather than lobbying against the rights of American women.

I stand here again for the religious liberty of the Second Vatican Council, for the position of reproductive freedom of J. C. Murray and Cardinal Cushing, for the Supreme Court decision. I delight in the majority position in the Catholic pew and the American Theological Catholic world that says that abortion must remain a legal alternative. And I re-affirm the religious liberty of Catholic women and the right to baptism and everlasting life in Christ of those families that speak the truth that frees.

Senator Bayh and members of the Subcommittee, I respectfully introduce Dr. Jane Furlong-Cahill.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: As a National Director of Catholics for a Free Choice, we welcome this opportunity to testify here today before this committee as to the majority of Cathoiles support for Free Choice which is indicated in recent polls such as the NCR Report on data collected by the National Opinion Research Centers' General Social Survey, which we respectfully submit to this committee. (See attached.)

"In the tradition of modern Western civilization no two spheres stand more sharply opposed than that of religion and that of sex" Robert Briffault wrote in an article on "Sex in Religion". "Yet," he goes on, "a glance at the various religions of the world outside of Christianity, and one or two closely allied systems, a survey of religious rites of lower phases of culture, shows that the antithesis does not exist. Those religions and those rites, are on the contrary, shot through and through with riotous sensuality; the manifestations of the sex instinct instead of being accounted incompatible with the religious spirit, are associated with it in the closest manner; and the religions in those phases, is almost as much concerned with sex as with ethics and theology." Sex and Civilization, Havelock Ellis, Ed. 1929.

How did the fear of sex and, therefore, the fear of woman, and her subsequent and almost universal exclusion from "man's work", "his" wars and "his" religious rites come about in Christianity and especially in Roman Catholicism? We know from the evidence of comparative religion that all