■ Father Jean-Maurice, just when we were starting to see some light with regard to abortion, the Church intervenes and tries to send us back to the Middle Ages. What is going on?

What do you mean by see some light?

■ The government has decided to take one step towards alleviating the suffering of women.

You think that this means they have seen some light? I would say that the government and society in general are saying that it’s a matter of health and social justice, not religion. So we are in favour of debate and democracy, except when religious men speak up. No one wants religious men to speak up.

■ In a secular state, representatives of religion have the right to express themselves but not to monopolise the debate!

Ah! We are monopolizing the debate? How are we doing that? We are speaking in favour of humanity, in favour of women’s dignity. Real dignity, which is not necessarily to dispose of their body as they wish. Real dignity is about maternity, it’s about the right of women to housing, health, working conditions that respect their status as women and mothers. You are talking only about the right to harm.

■ Here again, you are imposing your defi nition. What child are we talking about? Abortion is about removing an agglomeration of cells. That’s all there is to it.

The agglomeration of cells, the fetus that is, has, according to all scientists, the potential to become a complete human being.

■ Yes, but it is not a human being yet.

But it has the potential to become one. It is growing.

■ Yes, it grows inside the woman’s womb if she so wishes.

This has been given to her. She has not invented it. For us, it is already a human being.

■ I think the debate today is about abortion in very specific cases. Even that you can’t come to terms with?

I think that abortion in specific cases will open the door to a laissez aller attitude. There are 20,000 abortions according to estimates. How many of those are related to rape and incest? Even if there is just one, you are going to tell me, that it is a dramatic case. But the criteria are so blurred. In countries where abortion has been made available in specific cases, the criteria have become so lax that abortion has become a form of contraception.

■ Let’s say, hypothetically, there was a way to make sure abortion is accepted only in very desperate cases, like rape and incest or where the mother’s health is threatened, would you agree to it?

Humanity being the way it is, it would soon be an open door.

■ I am asking you a hypothetical question. If there were an infallible means of control, would you agree?

(Hesitates) Partially. Because I am sensitive to the distress of women and young girls who are pregnant and left to themselves. They have to face their problems alone. Where are the men when all this is happening?

■ Well, where do you expect rapists and incestuous relatives to be? Long gone.

Yes, but we don’t talk about rapists we don’t talk about the men guilty of incest. We leave women in their solitude and we don’t talk about the other rights of women.

■ The first right of a woman is that she is not forced to keep on with a pregnancy she does not want. Wouldn’t you agree?

I would question that she does not want the child. It is part of her. We have heard women who, after 25 - 30 years, have come out to talk about an abortion that they were forced to have due to circumstances, but it remained a trauma in their lives. We talk about post-abortion trauma. A woman does not willingly, happily turn to abortion. She does so with death in her heart.

■ Exactly. So what right do we have then forcing a woman to keep a child that is the product of rape and incest?

I understand that.

■ Do you feel the suffering of these women?

Yes, of course. But we do not want to take the risk of embarking on abortion because it would open the door to laxity. This is what has happened in other countries like the U.K. and France.

■ But if there was an infallible way to control it, you said you would you agree, didn’t you?

If there was a way, yes. But I would still be very reluctant to open that door. You know I believe abortion is a garde-fou for humanity, which would allow humanizing the living and working conditions of women. But I fear that it will be a case of “have an abortion and be quiet about your other rights.”

■ You realise, don’t you, that your struggle targets only poor women? Rich women are not affected by whether abortion is decriminalised in this country or not. So, you are pushing poor women to despair.

We are pushing society to tackle the problem before it happens. Before the harm is done. You are trying to bandage the wound but by doing so, you are opening a bigger wound for humanity.

■ So it is better to sacrifi ce these women?

(Hesitates) This is not a sacrifice that is deliberately chosen. But abortion and the fact that it is illegal just as incest is illegal are founding principles
of human dignity. The fact that we are talking about “specific cases”, it’s because we know we are touching something sacred.

■ But no one has said that abortion is a good thing. We are saying let’s choose the lesser of two evils.

You know in England, Prime Minister Cameron has realized that things have become so lax that the law will be amended so women can choose their counselors to make sure that the counselors do not push them into having abortions.

(Read the full interview in  e-paper)