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.
Redefining Direct and Indirect Abortions through “The Perspective of the Acting Person”: A Misreading of Veritatis Splendor