While I am pro-choice, I acknowledge that there can be a range of legitimately held views on the issue of abortion. However, this disgusts me:
An 11-year-old girl was raped by her step-father and requested an abortion so that she could go back to being a child – instead of having to carry the product of rape to term and risk death by attempting to give birth before her body was sufficiently mature to handle the experience. This little girl made use of a new exception to Colombia’s ban on terminations, that allow for “pregnancies to be terminated in cases of severe deformity of the foetus, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger,” and doctors performed the procedure in the early stages of her pregnancy.
In response, the Catholic Church has threatened to excommunicate any member of the medical team who took part in the procedure. For goodness sake! She is 11 years old. She was the victim of rape. Her stepfather admitted to having abused her since the age of 7. Her life would be at risk if she were to carry the pregnancy to term – not to mention the ongoing psychological trauma that she would have suffered.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN?
A senator, Gina Parody, has responded to the Vatican’s threats by saying: “The Vatican has the right to excommunicate whomever they choose. But I would hope that they also excommunicate priests when they rape boys or girls.” Interestingly, I have never heard of such a thing taking place.
UPDATE: Apparently “A Roman Catholic cardinal has denied reports that he said the Vatican would excommunicate” the doctors in question.
I like the senator’s response. I haven’t heard of a priest being excommunicated for raping children either, although I think I’ve heard of a few getting the boot for getting married.
If the men running the church didn’t exist, the atheists would have to invent them.
So you get excommunicated. Big deal. It’s not like the Christian sacraments actually are effective.
Liberal minded Catholics around the world should boycott receiving sacrament in protest.
Well, it might have some meaning for a Catholic, silkworm.
And why do you think El Salvador has a total prohibition on abortion – even in the case of rape? The fact that Colombia recently changed its law suggests this is largely a political move.
If you could look outside your militant atheism for a moment, you might be able to accept two things. Firstly, that the Church has political power in many countries. Secondly, if people believe, then the actions of the Church have consequences for them.
On another note, I wonder why C.L. and FaceLift aren’t on this thread defending the fetus’ “right to life”.
Under canon 1398 excommunication is automatic so there would appear to be no discretion, whatever the circumstances. How this can sit with New Testament teaching I’ll leave to Catholic theologians, but it is pretty unsavoury.
“If the men running the church didn’t exist, the atheists would have to invent them.”
…wha?
It was the Constitutional Court that changed the law – by granting the limited exception under the Constitution and compelling doctors to perform the procedure where a patient fell into the categories in the exception.
The day is still young… most unfortunately.
FDB, my point is that if the atheists are seeking converts to their unbelief, this kind of behaviour by the churches is grist for their mill.
I used to think this was one area where abortion would be justified but then I heard a woman tell a moving story of how she had a baby from a rape and her boy was an absolute treasure.
Whilst the perpetrators meant evil some good did come from it.
Bring Back EP – a woman, maybe.
An 11-year-old girl is not a woman.
And an 11-year-old girl who’s been repeatedly raped by her stepfather?
It’s making me feel sick to my stomach that you could possibly suggest her having a baby could be “good” that comes from evil.
Wonderfully put by Senator Parody (is that name fo real)…..cruel but fair. But as a militant atheist and abortionist I would agree with that.
These men are out of sympathy with humanity – no sex, no marriage, no children. It leads to absolutist sorts of thinking, and weird sexual pathologies.
Though I was baptised Mick, Ive never had much to do with the institution until recently. For various reasons to do with my work, Ive had to interview a few missionary priests over the last few years. All lovely, committed people etc. I liked them a lot, in general. But bloody hell – dont get them talking about children. I was stunned how little they knew about them, how adolescent their attitudes towards them, how jejune in these worldy matters of passion, reproduction.
I wont go on, but Jeez, let the poor bastards marry, I say. Surely they’ll be more use to their parishioners.
Thank you Rebekka.
LeftyE, I think that you have an extremely good point – the utter disconnection of their lives from the reality experienced by women and children (and, even, married men) makes Catholic preists uniquely unhelpful at dispensing advice on family or sexuality-related matters. It is such a shame that they are arrogant enough to view their competence quite differently.
No … no… Not the briar patch!
PLEEEEZE, don’t throw me into the briar patch!
Not my words but hers and patently you do not understand!
BBEP, we understand very well that an 11-year old who has been repeatedly raped since she was 7 years old probably has internal damage that will make a full-term pregnancy even more lifethreatening that it would otherwise be for an 11-year old without adult pelvic development.
An adult woman who has been raped has no higher risk of injury/death from pregnancy than any other woman. That is patently not the case with most 11 year-olds, and certainly not this one.
She can’t find joy raising the child of rape if she’s dead, BBEP.
The abortion will do nothing to heal the girl’s “ongoing psychological trauma” but will probably add to it – as it does to many adult women. In moral alliance with pro-abortionists, rapists in these situations usually want a termination as well – it makes the cover-up and the continuation of their criminality far easier. Such is the ethical company some feminists keep.
Pro-abortionists always like to use tragedies like this to sell abortion. They aren’t so exercised about the hundreds of thousands of viable children killed in utero for reasons more difficult to dramatise. Many will even defend a woman’s “right” to a late-term homicide.
The aborted child in this case had an absolute right to life, as the 11 year-old girl had an absolute right to innocence. One evil violation has now been matched by another. Nothing good has been achieved.
I understand the Columbian High Court has accepted the Western-style “exceptions” policy – rape, incest, physical defect, danger to the mother’s life. The next step to abortion on demand, according to the manipulative precepts of Roe-Wade Yankee imperialism, would be for consideration to be given to a woman’s “psychological” health.
Kim, Catholics who don’t believe a foetus has a “right to life” are no longer really Catholics. Christ’s attitude to rapists of children and abortionists would probably be the same: Whoever harms one of these little ones, it would be better for him that a millstone be hung about his neck and that he be drowned in the sea.
BBEP – I understand the woman’s comment.
What I can’t possibly understand is your introducing this as part of a discussion about an 11-year-old who was repeatedly raped by her stepfather from the age of 7 until she got pregnant.
Your comment started with “I used to think this was one area where abortion would be justified but…”
But what?
This situation is completely, utterly different from that of a grown woman who was the victim of rape.
And your dismissing my comment as meaning I don’t understand your point only shows that you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Kim,
On another note, I wonder why C.L. and FaceLift aren’t on this thread defending the fetus’ “right to life�.
Hint of triumphalism, there? Well, for one thing I hadn’t seen it ’til just then!
A difficult, but rare case for (early) termination, based on the girl’s request and clear distress, but not an example of why abortion is good. No termination of life in the womb is entirely correct. I also agree with BBEP, but the girl’s desperation needs to be taken into account. A heart-wrenching case. You have to feel for the girl. I’d hate to have to be involved in the decision making process, or giving advice.
The step-father should be severely somethingged. The Vatican should butt out and leave the medical staff alone, or at least show a little heart. I’m not a Catholic so threats of excommunication mean little to me, but it must be scarey for Catholics.
Thanks for considering my point of view!
C.L. it is good to see the level to which you are willing to spin your irrational rage-filled arguments – particularly with this line:
It makes it so much easier to know that engaging with you is a complete and utter waste of time.
Facelift – the rationality and compassion of your response is a strong contrast to that of C.L. and I am very glad to see it. Thank you.
actually I thought I was making a general comment on abortion and not a specific comment on this case.
I excommunicated myself years ago. Sent the Pope a letter of apostacy and everything. Not sure if it was accepted or not. I might still be a Catholic in the eyes of God. I was only ever baptised (voluntarily when I was 10)… never gave my first confession or was confirmed… not sure what that means. Maybe I’ll only get into Heaven
Lite.But seriously… if anyone has truly offended God in this case it is the Stepfather who violated his daughter’s dignity, body, trust and very nearly her life (assuming her life won’t be scarred by the experience anyway). In my opinion, those doctors who performed the procedure… with the intent of restoring the girl’s childhood, dignity, and saving her life… are themselves guilty of no offense but offending the pride of the Church. Even if God disapproves of abortion… he also disapproves of killing… yet he nonetheless finds it easy to grant exceptions in the latter case. That he would therefore grant no exceptions in the former case seems a bit odd and a bit callous. Even if a woman is intended to bear children, surely they were nonetheless not intended to bear them at the age of 11 to a rapist step-father. I’m going to assume that this case has nothing to do with God’s intentions and everything to do with the frail pride of the human, all too human, clergy. Otherwise I would have to conclude that God is a callous… well… I can’t think of any noun that doesn’t involve swearing, and I know that there are sincere believers here so I will refrain.
Sorry, FaceLift, glad to see you have a rational and humane perspective on this one.
I love the logic some people display.
1. Abortion is Bad. It is Bad because a foetus is a human being, and has the rights of a human being.
2. But if the foetus is a product of rape, then it might be ok to abort the child.
So….your humanity, and right to protection from murder, depends on the circumstances of your conception then….? Right. Lovely. And they call us pro-choice lot utilitarian. Sheesh…
When I referred to internal damage I meant internal physical damage, CL. Pre-pubescent vaginas don’t cope with adult penises inserted into them without physical trauma. If I’d meant psychological damage (which I’m sure she also suffered) that’s what I would have written.
And you didn’t address the issue of the girl’s probable death from this pregnancy at all.
Utter straw-feminist-trampling bollocks. Any 11 year old requiring an abortion would be reported to Child Services and the abortus would be DNA typed to prove paternity. Rape victims seeking pregnancy termination can also have the abortus tested to establish paternity. This is the model of rape pregnancy abortion that feminists support, which provides evidence against the rapists.
I’ve no doubt that wealthy and well-connected child rapists attempt to subvert the system secretly wherever they can, but no feminist supports that.
Who is displaying that logic Luke? You ought to be clear when you are throwing around accusations.
Personally I believe that:
1. Abortion is not a great thing, but that a foetus is a foetus and does not have the same rights as a human being.
2. If the foetus is the product of rape then abortion becomes something that may be more important to the welfare of the mother – particularly when the “mother” in this case is an 11-year-old child who could easily die if she were forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
3. That women are human beings and should have the rights of human beings – including control over their own bodies, particularly when that control is necessary to actually protect their own lives.
BTW Are you a vegetarian Luke? Speaking of bloody hypocrisy.
Actually, I’m with Luke. Exceptions for rape and incest, unlike exceptions for health and life of the mother, are still about someone else apart from the woman (or girl!) whose body it is, deciding what is and isn’t a suitable reason for terminating a pregnancy.
While I agree that what the Church is threatening to do here is absolutely appalling, and I second the MPs sentiments, I actually agree with the CLs of the world. If it’s a sin, it’s a sin, unless it’s in self-defence. Not to mention the difficulties that would arise in enforcing such a dumb law. Do you have to get a rape conviction before you’re allowed the termination? Or is it enough to say “I was raped�? It’s a PR exercise that is there purely to allow the anti-choicers to look slightly more compassionate.
That said, it’s clear that there were compelling reasons to perform the termination for reasons of the mother’s health, and any Church that believes that killing in self-defence can be justified should be more consistent about how they apply the rationale.
If I might just go in to bat for Luke here, it seems to me he was making a criticism of Facelift’s position.
i.e. that for FL to be morally against abortion requires that he/she be completely and consistently against all terminations, this one included. Not very elegantly put, and I’m not sure I agree, but there you go.
But correct me if I’m wrong.
Facelift to Kim: “Hint of triumphalism, there?”
Indeed. Having been raped and subjected to an abortion, the girl is now being used by “feminists” obsessed with abortion.
Disgraceful but predictable.
Any 11 year old requiring an abortion would be reported to Child Services and the abortus would be DNA typed to prove paternity.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s a typical scenario in Columbia.
BBEP – why?
And I don’t see why a moral position requires absolute consistency – things aren’t that black and white, generally. As a society, we say it’s morally wrong to kill people – thus we have laws against murder.
But most people think there are exceptions – self-defence, for instance, if someone is trying to kill you. Or in a war (depending whether you think the war is morally justified, I suppose, introducing some further shades of grey). So for those who say abortion is wrong because it’s murder, there’s no reason why there wouldn’t be shades of grey there too – if the pregnancy physically endangered the mother’s life, for example, why would they necessarily think the mother’s life was less valuable than the foetus’s?
What would you know? You can’t even spell the place. They’re all backward jigaboos, eh?
Only the Catholic priests there seem backward to me.
that was for CL
As the only way to get an abortion in Colombia at all is through a court order, why on earth wouldn’t it be the typical scenario there?
Tsk, tsk.
A rather elementary example of a fallacy of semantical distortion (category: weasel words):
“possibly” is to “probably”
as
“many” is to “most”
Surely if only “many” women suffer post-abortion trauma, it is only “possible” that the girl in question will also suffer post-abortion trauma.
This would tend to add weight to Cristy’s conclusion:
(Just sayin’;-)
Retracted, apparently
http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,1862542,00.html
Apparently there’s some fairly emphatic denials coming out of Rome in regards to this.
Why? Who said you could make the rules about how I think? You’re just trying to put me in a box so you can organise your arguments better. Sorry, I won’t be boxed in. There’s a difference between law, judgment, rules and faith, compassion, mercy, grace and justice.
I said all abortion is in some way wrong, but we’re talking about an 11 year old girl who doesn’t want to go full term. Your problem is that you want to generalise rather than take every case on its merit, or difficulties.
If I had the opportunity or influence or were related I would probably attempt to talk the girl into going full term and at least offer bring the child up myself (if I were a family member) if she didn’t want to, and let her be a little girl again, if that was possible anyway after being raped already for 4 years, and make a decision about the child as she matured. On the other hand at 11 there were probably health risks to both mother and child which come into the equation, although a few hundred years ago very young mothers would have been the norm rather than the exception, but of course mother and infant mortality was higher.
The problem with relaxed abortion laws is that they have been allowed to take us into an era where extreme cases like this are not the only cases where abortion is agreed to, but in fact now we have daily abortions for far less urgent reasons. Don’t put me in that camp.
I said it was a difficult decision, but don’t try to make out that these are cold, clinical, legally defined decisons. This is a very rare case in which I would not be quick to come down on those who made the decision to terminate. I think CL is right to point out that in some way this abortion will affect the girl emotionally, but, look at what she’s been through already in her life. All she needs right now is love.
I am not against abortion on all occasions. If the baby is attacking the mother then you have to defend the mother which by definition requires an abortion.
I am merely saying that after talking to some women ( not many) who have had babies following a rape I do not immediately think of abortion.
In this instance I assume ( pardon the biology ignorance) that there may be significant problems in having the baby.
Whoops, let me pick a slightly less biased website (though it’s still pretty much the same story) – spokesman denies the alleged excommunication threat.
Damn! These days it’s just soooo easy to be more Catholic than the Pope!
Where’s the challenge?
“Well, it might have some meaning for a Catholic, silkworm.”
The doctors might want to think about whether they would wish to belong a church which excommunicates them, in these circumstances. If it was me, I’d wear the excommunication as a badge of honour.
“And you didn’t address the issue of the girl’s probable death from this pregnancy”
Exactly. Even if the foetus has an absolute right to life, that is trumped by the girl’s absolute right to life.
It’s amazing that the anti-abortion zealots are even debating this case. We’re not talking about a 28 year old lawyer who wants an abortion because having a baby will affect her chances of being promoted to partner. This is about a child who got pregnant after being raped by her step-father.
Child, raped, step-father. Any one of those factors should allow the abortion to go ahead without a second thought. This case had all three.
Yes, Cardinal Trujillo denies ever thinking of such a scenario let alone calling for it. It looks like it could be shaping as a bit of invented agitprop in what seems to be a fiercely contested Colombian national debate about abortion.
Still, Cardinal Trujillo was the clown who publicly asserted that condoms were no good at preventing HIV because the virus escaped through previously undetected microscopic holes in the Latex (presumably caused by pinhead angels) so anything is possible.
This thread is my cue to post my updated update of a famous song by Joe Hill.
Joe Ratzinger comes out every day
To tell us how to live the right way
But when asked about something to eat
He will answer in his voice so sweet:
“You will eat by and by
“In that glorious land in the sky
“Work and pray
“Don’t be gay
“You’ll get pie in the sky when you die�
Happy clappers from Hillsong come out
And they clap and they sing and they shout
And when their eyes glaze over and roll
They will tell you, if you’re on the dole:
“You will eat by and by
“In that glorious land in the sky
“Work and pray
“Don’t be gay
“You’ll get pie in the sky when you die�
Right-to-lifers in stridulent voices
Denounce young women’s misguided choices
For “Abortion is murder!� they warn
But who’ll feed all those kids if they’re born?
“They will eat by and by
“In that glorious land in the sky
“Work and pray
“Don’t be gay
“They’ll get pie in the sky when they die�
Men and women of all lands unite
Side by side for our freedom we’ll fight
When this world and our rights we have gained
To the straighteners we’ll sing this refrain:
“You will eat by and by
“When you’ve learned how to cook and how to fry
“If you’re straight
“Love don’t hate
“Then you’ll eat in that sweet by and by.�
FaceLift, I can understand you feeling a tad backed-against-the-wall here, but reread my comment carefully and in full:
“If I might just go in to bat for Luke here, it seems to me he was making a criticism of Facelift’s position.
i.e. that for FL to be morally against abortion requires that he/she be completely and consistently against all terminations, this one included. Not very elegantly put, and I’m not sure I agree, but there you go.
But correct me if I’m wrong.” (emphasis added)
I frankly think it is courageous of you to confront what would otherwise be an absolutist position and to see that harm is in some cases inevitable – minimising harm
isshould be everyone’s objective first and foremost, and as you acknowledge this might sometimes mean relaxing moral standpoints. It’s not the thin end of any wedge, it’s called rational decision-making.Good to see. Shall update the post accordingly.
It seems that Rome and Facelift may be on a similar page on this issue. While I consider myself pro-choice, I also support people taking a nuanced approach to this issue.
Questions of morality are rarely black and white, and being able to acknowledge the exceptions to your own rules and the shades of grey that exist within these debates shows a willingness to think deeply and carefully about your own position.
Thanks, FDB, I appreciate your comments.
It has nothing to do with Rome accepting “nuance” or “shades of gray,” Cristy. Excommunications would be the responsibility of the Colombian hierarchy, would need to be studied by competent local authorities, the culpability of various of the people involved would have to established etc. Contrary to the language used in this post, “the Vatican” doesn’t decide these things and pronounce judgement via the media.
Paul Norton argued here a few days ago that the Pope’s word was more or less final. Now he’s writing verse about Joe Ratzinger coming out “every day
to tell us how to live the right way.”
Hard to follow.
The “language” was quoted directly from the media and I have heard of plenty of statements coming out of the Vatican that “decide” these sorts of things. As for your last few sentences, I cannot make head or tail of what you are trying to say. Is your judgement clouded by rage C.L.?
You mean like this one Cristy?
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/china.vatican/
But then again, times may have changed. This happened as long ago as May 2006!
Outlook seems to be cloudy…
Cristy, you may be clouded by rage because you’ve got the whole story hopelessly wrong. And you wouldn’t have heard “plenty of statements” evidencing the Vatican stepping in to conduct excommunications – which are typically (ferendae sententiae) the responsibility of local Churches.
Abortion is one of only several sins punishable by excommunication latae sententiae. That is, it is automatic and presumed to be effective unless and until the Holy See rules otherwise. Cardinal Trujillo was referring to this canonical reality, not to any intention of “the Vatican.” In a sense, a Catholic who performed an abortion could be said to have excommunicated him or herself.
Another sin incurring excommunication latae sententiae – “Trieste” Katz is unaware of this, of course – is any episcopal consecration without a Papal mandate. The Chinese bishops were also excommunicated automatically.
The next time you run an anti-Catholic hit-piece, why not spend a few minutes making sure you know what you’re talking about?
The post was not an “anti-Catholic hit-piece” and I was simply quoting from a media article (which was linked to clearly in the post). When the information was updated, I accordingly updated the post.
Your accusations are unfounded and obnoxious. If you don’t have anything honest or constructive to say then please refrain from commenting at all C.L.
Is the apparent contradiction between these two statements another one of those famous Catholic mysteries?
Yes, I confess ignorance about the recondite minutiae of Catholic governance. I am also almost entirely ignorant of the Masonic movement and the rites of succession of the Dalai Lama. There are only so many hours in the day.
Clearly, CL has committed at least one of these bodies of arcana to memory.
A fellow needs a hobby I suppose…
My comments have been honest and constructive, Cristy. They’ve certainly been no more pointed than those made by Senator Parody or your own anti-clerical sentiments above. You’ve twice referred to my contributions as “rage” driven – presumably as a feline attempt to marginalise as violently extreme any male who disagrees with you.
Rage-driven: “WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN?”
Nothing, as it turns out.
I admit it. I engaged with a person that was not worth speaking to. I apologise to the blogworld and hope to learn from this experience in future.
That’s ok Christy – we’ve all done it once. The important thing is to never do it again.
So CL,
But you said:
These doctors who seem to have performed the abortion: Are they currently excommunicated or not?
What can I say?
Rape = Vile, evil, disgusting.
Abortion = Morally ambiguous – should be up to the mother.
Ex-communication = Whoever made this threat MUST have been absolutely crackers! Surely?
Glad I’m not a Catholic.
Baby = Wonderful! Good! All things great!
If a baby is born, then it will, at least, be something happy to come out of all this madness.
“unless and until the Holy See rules otherwise.”
Ah, but the Catechism-according-to-C.L. says they don’t make such rulings and pronounce them to the waiting world. Apparently, it’s up to the Colombians.
Better brush up on your dogma, sonny.
Katz, for ecclesiastical office-holders, a declared excommunication (that is, ferendae sententiae) formalises the excommunication latae sententiae (which is automatic, presumed and, as it were, self-policed) and shuts down that person’s official powers and rank. This is especially necessary where phony bishops are concerned, for obvious reasons.
In the case of abortion, the sentence would only be recognised by professing Catholics anyway and could be revoked for participants who may not have been fully informed, who aren’t properly educated and so on. That sort of determination would be made by the local Church.
OK, I am going out to meet my lovely husband for dinner. Please play nice.
Plus, it’s not just the doctors.
Apparently,
“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae”
So this little girl herself is in need of Canonical intervention if she wants to be absolved.
So there are infractions against the authority structures of the church and there are infractions against church dogma which may be punishable by excommunication.
You imply that abortion is one of the latter.
Are there any others? Murder? Pederasty?
FDB, since first encountering you as the person who was unaware that Queensland only had one house of Parliament, I no longer take anything you write all that seriously.
So this little girl herself is in need of Canonical intervention if she wants to be absolved.
No she isn’t because she is under-age.
But CL, in the course of a long and seemingly learned disquisition on the timing of the first confession, John Cardinal Wright says:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_07121980_fconf_en.html
Doesn’t that suggest that there is prima facie evidence that the 11 year-old girl in question may well have a “strong subjective consciousness of evil”, and is therefore a worthy candidate for excommunication.
It’s all so perplexing.
The level of hipocracy of the catholic hurch and the so called ‘right to life’ posse never ceases to amaze me. As a young peace activist and draft resistor during the vietnam war the war mngering attitudes fellow (at the time) Catholics never ceased to shock me. many of this same group lead the calls for capital punishment and defend nuclear weapons. clearly the right to life only applies to certian categories of life and is really more about control over others lives rather than any real faith. The only religious people who deserve any respect are those who really take the bible’s rule seriously that is ‘thou shall not kill” and hence are absolute pacificists.
Katz, the Church teaches that three criteria exist for establishing guilt for mortal sin:
1) to start with, it must involve a “grave matter”;
2) the person must have “full knowledge” of the evil of the act;
3) the person must give “full consent of the will.”
Only the matter itself – abortion – can be contemplated “prima facie.” It is indeed grave. The other criteria cannot be so easily assumed.
Contrary to popular mythology, the Catholic Church doesn’t lightly assume people are objectively guilty of everything they happen to do in the course of their lives. Children are certainly capable of sinning but it is extremely unlikely the Church would judge this 11 year-old girl guilty of having committed a mortal sin; of, in other words, having invoked excommunication in this instance.
That is because she was considering – if indeed she did “consider” it – ethical decisions regarding a circumstance (the pregnancy) beyond her ken. Having a “strong subjective consciousness of evil” does not mean she had full knowledge of how serious this matter objectively was or that she freely gave her full and informed consent to the procedure.
I have never heard or read about a child being excommunicated for any sin – much less for one so humanly and pastorally tragic and delicate. The Church would be more interested in healing and pastoral care for the child and the family – not for bookish considerations of canonical guilt.
And an ailurophobe to boot, eh?
Dr Cat, what’s an ailurophobe?
If it means an aversion to pussies, I’m against it!
Ditto.
The defence of patriarchal Catholicism by liberal Catholics never ceases to amaze me.
Get over it, silkworm.
The point about being Catholic is that it’s the original broad church.
Look up the meaning of the word.
And if you lost the snearing tone every time you mentioned people’s sincerely held religious beliefs, that would be very welcome.
That’s from the link that QuietStorm posted. Does anyone know whether now that Michelle Badelet is President of Chile, any change is contemplated?
C.L. is 100% right about this.
And this:
Disappointing level of discourse on a lot of this thread. Granted it’s a fraught and emotional issue, so perhaps that can’t be avoided. Still, C.L. has been trying to discuss an exceedingly difficult matter with nuance and intelligence, and a bunch of y’all have basically thrown a lot of rotten turnips at him because he’s had the bad taste to disagree with you. Apparently anybody who doesn’t immediately conclude from this matter that the Catholic Church is evil and stupid can only be ‘filled with rage,’ or ‘not worth talking to,’ and deserves only sarcasm as a response. Not a very graceful or persuasive way to communicate.
I hereby prescribe the lot of you to watch the Python sketch ‘Argument Clinic’ three times, say three Hail Marys, and throw one ‘Hail Mary’ pass to a wide receiver in the end zone.
j_p_z, I think the word “abortion” brings out the worst in debates. The other thread on stem cells is much more good natured, and sophisticated, and I’ve learnt stuff I didn’t know.
Which is always good.
Yes indeed j_p_z.
This thread began with a statement of disapprobation of some actions of the Catholic hierarchy.
It seems that these actions have been mischaracterised by the reports.
CL has brought his expertise to bear to explain what these actions actually were.
The question arises why these actions by private persons who happen to hold offices in the Catholic Church arouse much passion. After all, as CL has acknowledged, the Catholic Church is nothing more than a voluntary society, more akin to the boy scout movement than to an institution that can insist upon conformity to its dogma on pain of punishment.
My guess is that many of the rhetoric devices employed in discussion of the Catholic Church were developed when the Church was a powerful institution that was dangerous to its opponents and detractors and which could rely upon state power to support its claims to sole spiritual and moral authority.
This rhetoric, ironically, has survived, even though the unreconstructed Catholic Church has not.
Perhaps it’s time for persons who wish to discuss the Catholic Church to adjust their rhetoric to reflect new, modest realities.
(Interestingly, the last time the Catholic Church came close to reflecting its counter-reformation potency was in Poland during the senescence of the Communist regime. Perhaps authoritarianism is a tonic for the Church, whether supportive of or malignant to its interests.
In regard to your points, Katz, with which I largely agree, I’m not sure why Cristy has prefaced her update regarding the denials with the word “apparently”.
Indeed. And that would make you an ailurophobephobe.
A label, despite my general distaste for identity politics (as an Australian-American feminist amputee lesbian-identified bisexual), I’m happy to wear, Dr Cat.
I’ll have it sown into my shirts as an identifier presently.
Did I mention Catholic and matrilineal Jewish ancestry?
I seem to recall that in the last major survey on abortion in Australia ( I think it was the Medical journal of Australia)hich a sample of over 10,000 rape as a reason was so small it didn’t rate statistically.
Exactly, BBEP. It’s a wedge. Tragic for the people involved, but of nothing other than local interest except for it’s potential as an “anti-Catholic hit piece” (as very accurately described by CL).
Kim, the “apparently” was to link back to the Guardian article that had just been drawn to my attention. I often use the word “apparently” to start blog posts about articles that I have read in the media, when I am doing little more than parroting what they have said (i.e. do not have the time at hand to analyse the issue or say anything more about it). This was the case with the update – I read the article and linked to it as an update without providing any additional information (as I was busy trying to write my thesis). There was nothing sinister intended by the use of the word.
Obviously I take the Catholic Church seriously or it wouldn’t concern me that people were being threatened with excommunication. However, the original article was quite clear that this threat was coming from the Vatican and I had no reason to believe that they had been incorrectly informed. For a devout Catholic to be threatened with excommunication is a pretty serious issue and not one that I believe they would personally take lightly. As such, I thought that it was a fairly serious issue to discuss the reasons why they were being so threatened. The post was not intended to be an “anti-Catholic hit piece” and actually mentioned nothing about the religion outside of the issues relating to the little girl and her doctors. As such, I think that such an accusation is unfair and unnecessarily defensive. The Catholic Church and the hierarchy within the church are surely not the same thing – particularly not for liberal Catholics of whom I know there are many.
I also don’t see how this opening paragraph of CL’s was amounts in any way to a discussion of “an exceedingly difficult matter with nuance and intelligence”:
Instead he simply took the first available opportunity to take a swipe at feminists. If that is your personal agenda you might see this as an “intelligent” comment, but personally I just found it offensive and unhelpful.
The mischievous dig at feminists was unnecessarily provocative and as type of polemical gambit is past its used-by date. I apologise for it and promise to more clearly enunciate my arguments in future. Katz has also been quite indulgent towards me and I’m thankful for that. I’ll try to return the favour more often and see if we can’t establish a modus vivendi of perduring civility.
Cristy, many Catholics also find it offensive and unhelpful to have their Church’s views constantly caricatured. That may not have been your intention but your penultimate comment above seems to indicate that you still don’t understand the many reasons why this story is simplistic nonsense. I’ve tried to explain those reasons. I would only add here that nobody is being “threatened” and that I doubt very much that any “devout Catholics” are involved in this abortion.
First paragraph: very reasonable and welcome.
Second paragraph: completely fails to acknowledge that I was directly reporting what was already reported in the global media and corrected the mistakes in that report when they were also corrected in the global media. To pretend that I personally made the story up or interpreted other statements as “threats from the Vatican” when they had not been reported as such is a mischaracterisation of the post.
FWIW, I also aplogise for my peurile weighings-in. I have gone off half-cocked on topics I only half-understand and I hope no lasting offence has been caused.
Perhaps, C.L., you could do me the courtesy of including this apology and retraction in your growing dossier?:)
(Cheeky good-natured tone, not more niggling I swear)
Likewise FDB, I apologise. Few people are being really personal in these sorts of discussions/debates. Occasionally, to acknowledge that fact is to make ongoing discourse possible. That’s what I’ve come to think in recent times, anyway.
I don’t think I pretended you made up the story, Cristy. I just think you wanted it to be as straightforward as The Guardian presented it because that fitted a certain stereotype. As you asked – exasperation, not reportage – “WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN?” You also made a sweeping generalisation about “Catholic priests” which I thought was unfair and malicious. (And I’m no uncritical defender of those faults which the clerical state has been known to exacerbate in a minority).
Anyway, I’m not trying to have the last word but I just wanted to clarify that point about motivation. I may have slightly misconstrued yours and you may have slightly misconstrued mine.
>>El Salvador and Chile are now the only Latin American nations to completely prohibit abortions.
>>That’s from the link that QuietStorm posted. Does anyone know whether now that Michelle Badelet is President of Chile, any change is contemplated?
I lived in Chile in 2004-05. I very much doubt that there will be any change to the law. Perhaps if a test case like this Colombian example came up there would be a change for extreme cases, but even that is, in my view, unlikely.
Bachelet heads the Concertacion, an alliance between the Socialist, Democratic, Radical Socialist Democratic, and Christian Democratic parties. The Democratic Christian Party are extremely anti-abortion and without their involvement the Concertacion would fall apart. It very nearly did over divorce. Abortion is not something that even a serious pro-choice politician would risk shattering the Concertacion for.
Even Chilean state schools teach from a Catholic standpoint, with crucifixes on the walls of classrooms. The idea that the Vatican should be the final authority is ingrained in a way that’s hard to imagine from here. I was there when the Pope dies. Schools were closed for two days, businesses shut up shop, it was as if the president had been assassinated.
I was walking through the University district of Santiago shortly after arriving in Chile when I heard a commotion coming around the corner. A protest rally was snaking down the main drag, a couple of hundred students with banners and chants. I caught the word ‘aborto’ and thought, ‘A-ha! A pro-choice rally!’ because what else would it be?
It was an anti-abortion rally.
It’s actually more common to see such demonstrations than pro-choice actions.
CL, your comment is great, but you didn’t need to ruin it by accusing Cristy of making “sweeping generalisations” about anyone. She didn’t, and you know that.
“…the utter disconnection of their lives from the reality experienced by women and children (and, even, married men) makes Catholic preists uniquely unhelpful at dispensing advice on family or sexuality-related matters. It is such a shame that they are arrogant enough to view their competence quite differently.”
Are you suggesting that a lack of experience of being a woman, or of being married, is not the norm for a priest?
I get that you don’t agree with the assessment, or that you think it’s unfair, but I don’t think that it’s really a “sweeping generalisation” when it is, in fact, a prerequisite of the job.
No Anna, “utter disconnection” from women, children and married men is not a “prerequisite for the job.” That orientation would, however, see a candidate screened out of the seminary. Priests are sons, uncles, brothers, brothers-in-law. Some of them were formally married and are fathers. Eastern rite Catholic priests are permitted to be married. Ordained Anglican priests who are accepted into the Catholic Church may continue to be married men and priests. Much of the “advice on family or sexuality-related matters” which Cristo believes priests to be “uniquely unhelpful at dispensing” is actually dispensed by parish workers and pastoral councellors who are trained professionals. Many, if not most, of the latter are women. If a celibate priest cannot have a worldview on children and marriage, then neither can a childless spinster/feminist like Julia Gillard.
This is kind of what I’m driving at again: you want to believe something is true despite the fact that it isn’t.
Cristy, I meant. Not “Cristo.”
CL, I wasn’t arguing with your opinion on the matter, although mine is obviously much closer to Cristy’s. But she was talking about the fact that the people forming the Vatican’s views, and the priests who implement them are universally a. not women, and b. not married.
That you think that isn’t a problem is fine, though I disagree. But it isn’t a sweeping generalisation to say it, it’s a fact.
The analogy with Julia Gillard doesn’t hold up. If the whole Labor Party was made up of single, white, childless women it would be a good point. But it isn’t. The Catholic Church’s leadership doesn’t have the same level of variety.
But that’s their choice. If the Catholic Church chooses to live, or die, by that decision, then so be it.
Those who have no stake in the decision have no legitimate interest in either praising or criticising that decision.
And I wasn’t doing that Katz. I was pointing out that in writing what she did, Cristy was not making generalisations, just stating a fact.
But I disagree: I don’t think it’s the choice of an 11 year old girl to be part of that Church, yet her life is affected by the Vatican’s decisions. It’s all well and good for those of us in secular societies to say it’s a matter of choice, but it isn’t that simple in many other nations.
A little Sunday reading
What horrible arrogant priests, living in splendid isolation, thinking they can teach their flock about living out God’s love in marriage much less learn from marrieds about how to live out God’s love as celibate priests.
Translation from here.
Colombian Constitution:
The state of Colombia is at least as secular as our own.
It so happens that the Catholic Church may have much influence over the sentiments of legislators, but the Catholic Church has no special function under the Colombian constitution.
The struggle for a secular state in Colombia has been won. The next battle revolves around taking full advantage ofthatfreedom.
…the fact that the people forming the Vatican’s views, and the priests who implement them are universally a. not women, and b. not married.
Is c. not a fact.
Catholic priests are not “universally” unmarried.
Those who help form the Vatican’s views are not “universally” men. Women have immense – often predominant – influence in their own religious institutes, in parishes, diocesan pastoral councils, in the Church’s welfare agencies, in schools, in hospitals and in higher education.
In the case of abortion, we are not talking about a Vatican “view.” The Church’s teaching reflects the commonly held belief that abortion is gravely immoral – as has been taught by it ab initio.
But it isn’t a sweeping generalisation to say it, it’s a fact.
No it’s not, as I’ve already explained.
The Catholic Church’s leadership doesn’t have the same level of variety.
It has far more variety than the overwhelmingly Anglophone Labor Party. Its leadership includes representatives of every race and colour on the face of the earth.
“Those who have no stake in the decision have no legitimate interest in either praising or criticising that decision.”
We shall not ask people to take their own advice.
Influence, possibly. Power, no.
Uh huh. And what about gender?
Anyone who patronises Catholic women as powerless can’t possibly know very much about Catholic culture. Medieval abbesses wielded far more of it than today’s busy-busy bluestockings
Church leadership is provided by both men and women except in those positions that derive from ordination. The “Vatican,” however, is not “the Church” and there are many examples of women’s leadership at a countless multitude of local, diocesan, provincial and other levels.
If being an unmarried single person makes a power-broker ignorant of social realities, Julia Gillard should resign from Parliament. Mother Teresa was just a smidgen more influential than Julia.
Critics are welcome to attend Mass somewhere and spend time afterwards trying to convince the parish’s women that abortion should be accepted by the Church as morally neutral.
Good luck with that.
No, I’m sure they can’t. Good thing I wasn’t doing anything of the kind, eh? Patronising is as patronising intends, and I wasn’t. I was simply pointing out — in the context of the disucssion so far — the fact that, in your own words,
Mind you, I’m also all against patronising women-who-disagree-with-you by setting up question-begging straw patronisers and expecting said women to fall for it.
Influence, possibly. Power, no.
That sounds patronising.
Anyway, insofar as you seem to be arguing now that ordination is the key to exercising leadership in the Church, I’m obliged to say yet again that you’re wrong.
Bearing in mind also that the Christian vocation isn’t about acquiring POWER.
And just when it looks like CL might lose, he changes the goal posts again.
Brilliant move! his supporters exclaim, while his opponents realise once again that he is not, in fact, worth the time of day.
I’m not trying to win anything, Anna. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and should perhaps consider refraining from comment on the Church’s affairs.
You were arguing earlier that Catholic priests are “universally” unmarried and that the leadership of the ALP is more diverse than that of the Catholic Church. You’d have to move the debate’s goalposts to the lunar surface to have any credibility after those howlers.
You are being ridiculous, CL. And almost everyone here knows it.
The argument so far has gone thus:
You make a nice apology, then use up all the goodwill to make an unfair and unjustified swipe at Cristy. I call you on it, and point out that even if you disagree with her assessment it isn’t generalising to say that priests are unmarried men. I stand corrected on the universally part as far as unmarried goes, but it is still not a sweeping generalisation to say that this is the norm, as it still describes the overwhelming majority.
Then, because you can’t maintain that line, you revert to your standard fallback (“but what about the Labor Party?”). This is clearly a dumb point firstly because even if Julia Gillard isn’t qualified to do her job, that doesn’t prove that priests are any more or less qualified to do theirs. Furthermore it isn’t relevant because Julia Gillard isn’t a priest, and the criticisms that Cristy made have nothing to do with politicians (I hope I don’t have to explain the differences to you…).
Then the argument moves on to the fact that women apparently have influence within the Vatican, and you claim that it was patronising of PC to point out that influence isn’t the same as power and that power beats influence any day.
And once you realise that you can’t hold your own there, you shift the goal posts again to the even more irrelevant “but Christianity isn’t about power”.
If you have to resort to hyperbole, non sequiturs, equivocation, distraction and generally being a prat, then perhaps it’s better just not to say anything at all.
[quietly applauds Anna and walks away from a thread that has, unfortunately, become all about C.L.]
I’m a righty, so am stunned at the seriousness with which so many on the other side take the Godbotherers’ point of view (pace Santamaria).
They can’t even prove their first principle, Anna, Christy and Pavlov’s Cat. An ‘ought’ does not flow from an ‘is’. And, at the risk of sounding mean, when blokes comment on this issue, they should be listened to and politely dismissed.
Religion. Feh.
The point surely is, skepticlawyer, that the Church exercises both political power and moral suasion over its members.
Unfotunately, Mark, that’s the problem. Especially the political power part.
Perhaps my problem is that I find something inherently funny in the proposition that ‘my imaginary friend is more powerful/important/true than your imaginary friend’.
I can see that’s a rational point of view from an atheist/agnostic point of view, skepticlawyer, but of course religion doesn’t answer to reason! That’s not quite right, but it’s certainly more about emotion and affect than rationality.
So what you’re saying, skepticlawyer, is that the only people qualified to make political decisons on early pregnancy are atheistic feminists?
You’re right, of course, and I have no problem with the emotion and affect, so long as it’s confined to the moral suasion you mention. It’s when it becomes allied to political power, as is common in parts of South America and the Middle East. That’s when the dead bodies start piling up, along with the misogyny, and the attempts to control ordinary citizens, especially women.
I have to admit I find Tony Abbot profoundly creepy, and I’m very glad RU486 was taken out of his hands.
Anyone can make a decision on early pregnancy, FL, on whatever grounds. They just can’t enforce the rationale for that decision on others. At the risk of sounding callow, if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one.
… (and yes, I have engaged in a nasty piece of logical cheapshottery here; see if you can spot it).
Doesn’t alter the basic point, however.
Cristy posted a vicarious hit-piece against the Catholic Church that turned out to be false. I’ve explained at length why it was false. She also posted this sweeping and bigoted generalisation (which was also hyperbole): “…Catholic preists [are] uniquely unhelpful at dispensing advice on family or sexuality-related matters. It is such a shame that they are arrogant enough to view their competence quite differently.” I then pointed out how ludicrous and factually mistaken this assertion was.
I’ve apologised for nothing other than a generalisation of my own about feminism. I stand by my stated intention to avoid generic feminist-baiting. I haven’t once apologised for my arguments regarding the substantive issue. Nor will I because on all of the facts, I’m on solid ground.
Cristy wanted to believe people were “threatened” with excommunication. They weren’t. Anna believes the leadership of the ALP is more diverse than the Catholic Church. It isn’t (LOL). She also believes Catholic priests are “universally” unmarried. Not true. Pavlov’s Cat thinks Catholic women have no power. They do.
There was then an attempt to salvage this train-wreck of a tag-team argument by implying: priests are all men; ergo they have the POWER and that’s why the Church opposes abortion. The Church has regarded abortion as gravely immoral from the beginning. I am aware of no mainstream Catholic women’s group whose desire is a Roe-Wade rewrite of the Catechism.
I reiterate a point I’ve already made: if Cristy (or Anna or Pavlov’s Cat) want to post anti-Catholic hit-pieces, they should at least buttress them with some basic research because none of the aforementioned posters know what they’re talking about on this subject – in either its generalities or its specifics.
I note that Anna has bailed out on the challenge I’ve made regarding Julia Gillard. Ms Gillard is unmarried and childless; therefore, according to Cristy and Anna, she is “uniquely unhelpful at dispensing advice on family or sexuality-related matters.” She is obviously unfit to be the country’s alternative health minister.
I’m more than gratified with the support I’ve received on this thread, Anna. Your recourse to personal abuse indicates embarrassment and for that you only have your own ignorance to blame.
I would add, skepiclawyer, that I have already touched on the fact that the canonical and pastoral reality of Catholic praxis doesn’t lightly convert ought to is. Santamaria, by the way, made clear on several occasions that he did not personally adhere to the straightening Irish Jansenism that one could reasonably associate with a hypothesised Australian version of Catholic God-bothering. (Nor did his patron, Dr Mannix). Many less-than-pious Labor figures – including Clyde Cameron and Jim McClelland – admired him for this and other reasons. It seems we can now add sketiclawyer’s name to this thread’s growing list of fact-averse dilettantes.
At the risk of sounding mean, when those massively ignorant of both history and Catholicism comment on the Church’s culture and life, they should be listened to and politely dismissed.
Ite, missa est.
‘Ms Gillard is unmarried and childless..’
But fancies the crap out of Tony Abbott, according to Geoff H. I hope that’s true.
Oooo, Rob – you cheeky devil! (I wish I knew how to do the appropriate graphic, but I don’t).
And CL… bait is live and has hit the water
No no no, Rob, it’s the other way round.
C.L. — we’ve all already told you we can see straight through your lacy logic, goal-post transport, false analogies and all your other bad debating strategies. I don’t get why you keep doing it.
And I’ve already told you Pav that you and your fellowettes have been consistently and embarrassingly wrong. And you know it.
Now you’re desperately resorting to the group psychology of an adolescent.
Have some self-respect.
I have to agree that the Catholic Church is so broad and multi-opinioned that it’s a wonder the hierarchy has the ability to hold it all together so successfully. It clearly comes down to the traditions developed over centuries, much like the law (skepticlawyer), which has a certain moral dimension to it, and which hasn’t been changed and organised suddenly or thoughtlessly, but through careful and thorough debate over time, occasionally decades of reasoning and argument. And the Church has been involved in much of the construction of the law as we know it, despite the call for a separation of Church and State.
Despite the influence of the Catholic (and other) Church/es which vehemently oppose all abortion, it is still a fact that, despite their protests, abortion is legal in most democracies, which says that the ‘power’ of the Catholic Church isn’t overwhelming, although its ‘influence’ remains and I believe it still serves to hold in check secular ambitions to push us further along the line of unbridled liberality, and into a completely amoral society.
I don’t agree with the idea of excommunication as a threat, but it seems that, in this case at least, it wasn’t there, anyway, so I for one apologise for saying earlier that the Vatican should butt out,when it didn’t actually butt in.
I do think that some of the personal attack on CL and the Catholic Church has been unworthy of this blog, which I generally find openminded and welcoming of decent debate. I think we need a bright mind like CL’s to help us find out how to put our own point across in an articulate way without personal slurs. I don’t always agree with what CL says, and he can be abrasive, but I think he puts his case well.
It seems odd that anyone would claim that women have any role in the church hierarchy other than as exemplars. Based on what I was taught in Catholic schools and my observations over the years during and since, there’s very little argument to be made. Members of female religious orders or distaff bodies are sanctioned by the male bodies and have no voice in decisions outside the operations of their order, no decision-making capacity or role in ordinations, let alone the selection of bishops or cardinals or the pope, all roles exclusively filled by men. The orders themselves, male and female, don’t offer much beyond scholarship, if that, other than a pool of candidates to the hierarchy, and then only the males. Claims for hierarchical roles for medival abbesses (or, in a notable modern example, Mother Theresa) are irrelevant and didn’t (don’t) extend much beyond the abbey walls in any event, except in public works that could be used to support the central authority of the Vatican. This extends down to the parish level, where, despite the presence of women on the parish council or as service-providers, whether counsellors, teachers, or office staff and volunteers, the decision-making authority is entirely that of the priest in charge, who must always balance the needs or demands of his parishioners with his function as the only authorised operative of the Church, the sole representative of Christ’s authority in the community, regardless of the inclusive ‘body of Christ’ message of the Gospels.
This doesn’t preclude the Church from making pronouncements and acting according to the authority it claims for itself among its membership, and I fully expect to hear both support and condemnation from its spokesmen regarding such matters as this, support for the little girl, condemnation of the act. Mostly, I seem to hear only about the abortion.
1. No-one has claimed women have a role in the “Church hierarchy.” The Church hierarchy is not the limiting definition of what “the Church” is.
2. …no decision-making capacity or role in ordinations…
No role in ordinations? Greg, have you been to a modern ordination? Most, I assure you, are very woman-influenced.
As for decision-making, the revolution in women’s religious orders was led and pioneered by women themselves. This pre-dated Vatican II and was well underway during the pontificate of Pius XII.
3. The orders themselves, male and female, don’t offer much beyond scholarship, if that, other than a pool of candidates to the hierarchy, and then only the males.
The orders themselves include examples of specialisation in almost every conceivable vocation: teaching, medicine, psychology, academe, contemplative life, missionary endeavours, public advocacy of various kinds, journalism, arts & crafts, literature, media. You would have a better chance of joining the hierarchy if you were not a member of a religious order. The orders are not “a pool of candidates.”
Yes, ordination is reserved to men. This has nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on abortion. That teaching has been expounded since the beginning. There are no Catholic women’s groups advocating the removal of the Church’s teaching on the subject.
4. Nobody has claimed that medieval abbesses played “hierarchical roles.” Their political, economic and social power was often immense. Abbeys were not mere sub-branches of the Vatican; in many cases and places they were at radical variance with what was going on in the Vatican.
I have never heard it claimed that Mother Teresa’s influence didn’t extend beyond the “abbey walls” or that she was principally actuated by a desire to bolster the Vatican’s power. This is what one refers to politely as a novel argument.
5. Greg, women university graduates running or working for Centacare, running or working for multi-million dollar education offices, multi-million dollar hospitals and complex welfare agencies are not mere “service-providers.” I’d like to see you patronise them as such to their faces.
6. …decision-making authority is entirely that of the priest in charge.
Run that by a modern priest. He’ll get a laugh out of it.
7. …[the priest is] the only authorised operative of the Church, the sole representative of Christ’s authority in the community, regardless of the inclusive ‘body of Christ’ message of the Gospels.
Theological and actual nonsense.
7. Mostly, I seem to hear only about the abortion.
You only hear about the abortion, Greg, because of sensationalist caricatures of the kind being criticised here. The Church doesn’t publicise with press releases its pastoral care for traumatised people.
The most important point to remember, though, is this: the fact that ordination is reserved to men alone (being used here by some as a red herring) has absolutely nothing to do with Church doctrine on abortion.
Zero.
Whatever happened to the cheek turning, one wonders.
that is usually par for the course on topics such as this.
now look what we have a link of ordination and abortion. One should have a hands off attitude to that!
No-one has claimed women have a role in the “Church hierarchy.�
But the force with which you insist that women’s influence within the Church is equal to the official status as that of men amounts to being such a claim. Regardless of whether you wish to claim that “The Church� vs. the Church hierarchy is operative in the argument, “The Church� is not the functional body determining doctrine or making public pronouncements. Reframing the debate doesn’t actually change its content.
No role in ordinations? Greg, have you been to a modern ordination? Most, I assure you, are very woman-influenced.
Nevertheless, women do not ordain priests, select bishops, elevate cardinals, elect popes, assign priests to parishes. It’s nice they get to participate ceremonially, but that’s all they get to do.
As for decision-making, the revolution in women’s religious orders was led and pioneered by women themselves. This pre-dated Vatican II and was well underway during the pontificate of Pius XII.
And?
The orders themselves include examples of specialisation in almost every conceivable vocation: teaching, medicine, psychology, academe, contemplative life, missionary endeavours, public advocacy of various kinds, journalism, arts & crafts, literature, media. You would have a better chance of joining the hierarchy if you were not a member of a religious order. The orders are not “a pool of candidates.�
Point taken.
Yes, ordination is reserved to men. This has nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on abortion. That teaching has been expounded since the beginning. There are no Catholic women’s groups advocating the removal of the Church’s teaching on the subject.
How does this contradict the fact that women’s roles, whether within or outside of religious orders, does not influence (let alone determine) doctrine or that they do not administer the majority of the sacraments?
Nobody has claimed that medieval abbesses played “hierarchical roles.� Their political, economic and social power was often immense. Abbeys were not mere sub-branches of the Vatican; in many cases and places they were at radical variance with what was going on in the Vatican.
I have never heard it claimed that Mother Teresa’s influence didn’t extend beyond the “abbey walls� or that she was principally actuated by a desire to bolster the Vatican’s power. This is what one refers to politely as a novel argument.
This is a key element of your argument for the power – or let’s say ‘influence’ – of women in the Church, something you point out time and again, although not specifically pointing to the example of Mother Teresa. And you misunderstand my argument in that specific, or misstate it, anyway, since I never made any such claim regarding her motivation and thought I was clear in indicating that her work outside in the community could only be considered a hierarchical function of the Church with a rather broad definition of what constitutes that hierarchy.
Greg, women university graduates running or working for Centacare, running or working for multi-million dollar education offices, multi-million dollar hospitals and complex welfare agencies are not mere “service-providers.� I’d like to see you patronise them as such to their faces.
Yet that’s precisely what they are, regardless of the money involved. That’s my role, too, working as I do in exactly such an office. At least I’m honest about it.
Run that by a modern priest. He’ll get a laugh out of it.
But you can’t actually deny it. Because it’s true. Only the priest, and often only with approval, can make the operational decisions. That he takes a consultative approach with his parishioners changes nothing. You mischaracterise the argument, but that doesn’t make it false.
Theological and actual nonsense.
Theologically, perhaps, but because only the priesthood has the authority, whether operationally or in the administration of sacraments, not ‘actually’ nonsense at all.
You only hear about the abortion, Greg, because of sensationalist caricatures of the kind being criticised here. The Church doesn’t publicise with press releases its pastoral care for traumatised people.
True enough, but if they’re willing to be so public in the one, perhaps it would be worthwhile to be a little more forthcoming in respect to the other.
The most important point to remember, though, is this: the fact that ordination is reserved to men alone (being used here by some as a red herring) has absolutely nothing to do with Church doctrine on abortion.
I agree, skipping past whether gender roles are deterministic in matters of doctrine specific to abortion, and only to the extent that the Church doesn’t insert itself into the public debate. Regardless of whether you or anyone else sees it as an excellent opportunity for ‘witnessing’, it takes advantage of someone whose been thoroughly abused already. There are some things that are also opportunities for that ‘right hand/left hand’ thing.
CL:
and
All depends on what you mean be the “beginning” and what you mean by “abortion”.
St. Augustine opined, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensationâ€?. He asserted that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin. Augustine and other early Christian theologians followed Aristotlean dicta that “animation” or “quickening”, or the coming alive of the foetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. (Weird, huh?)
The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in The first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the church was compiled in 1140. It held that early abortion, as defined by Aristotle, wasn’t homicide. This Code of Canon Law remained in force until 1917.
Until the mid-nineteenth century this tolerant approach persisted. Then Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated foetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
(It has been alleged that Pius IX was concerned about falling birthrates in France. If only. There’d be fewer cheese-eating surrender monkeys today to chuck their wrenches into freedom fighting everywhere.)
So, fierce Catholic opposition to all abortion is of quite recent origin, and possibly at least partially motivated by concerns that were other than sacred.
Interesting and often raised points, Katz.
Debate between some scholars of Christian antiquity continued about the “infusion” of the soul for some considerable period of time. Ecclesiastical penalties varied according to the child’s state of development. That ending a life in utero was impermissible, however – and that doing so was gravely sinful – was taught by the Church from the first century, famously in the Didache (70 AD): “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child.” There was never – not since the beginning – any question for the Church that abortion was gravely sinful.
In the old code of Canon Law (1917) and in the new one (1983), the penalties for abortion were/are not equal to those for homicide. This represents not a lesser status being afforded the unborn child but a pastoral awareness of how different the two sins are – as regards culpability, consent, moral knowledge and so on. The harsher language used by some early Christian writers about abortion – “murder” – is not used in either Canon Law or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Tolerance (for the sinner, not the sin) hasn’t receded; it has flourished.
A Church council had officially condemned abortion by the fourth century – formalising what had already been taught and believed by several Church Fathers since the beginning:
Greg:
“The Church” is not the functional body determining doctrine or making public pronouncements.
Yes, it is.
But you can’t actually deny it. Because it’s true. Only the priest, and often only with approval, can make the operational decisions. That he takes a consultative approach with his parishioners changes nothing. You mischaracterise the argument, but that doesn’t make it false.
Why would I deny that a parish priest is the head of the parish and what does it have to do with abortion? The practical reality is that priests are not necessarily the constant de jure potentates of parishes. Not as regards money, counselling, liturgy, social organisation etc. Women tend to run many of these aspects of parish life.
Nevertheless, women do not ordain priests, select bishops, elevate cardinals, elect popes, assign priests to parishes. It’s nice they get to participate ceremonially, but that’s all they get to do.
Yes, priesthood is reserved for men alone. Again, this has nothing to do with the Church’s doctrine on abortion. It’s also patronising: Catholic women involved in ordinations – often ones who have played an enormous role in the seminarian’s life – don’t see themselves as ceremonial accoutrements.
“…not ‘actually’ nonsense at all…”
Referring to his earlier argument: “…[the priest is] the only authorised operative of the Church, the sole representative of Christ’s authority in the community, regardless of the inclusive ‘body of Christ’ message of the Gospels.”
This is nonsense both theologically and actually. There are thousands of “authorised operatives of the Church” who are not priests and they are involved in a diverse range of ministries. This reflects the Body of Christ theology that was the signature ecclesiological project of the Second Vatican Council. The Gospels speak of other than sacramental ministries and, as I’ve already pointed out, authority is spread around more today than ever before.
This also has nothing to do with the Church’s doctrine on abortion.
True enough, but if they’re willing to be so public in the one, perhaps it would be worthwhile to be a little more forthcoming in respect to the other.
They weren’t willing to be “so public.” The news story was wrong. As for being “more forthcoming” about a private pastoral response to the family and the girl, what do you suggest – a video-cam in the counselling room?
Finally:
Me: The most important point to remember, though, is this: the fact that ordination is reserved to men alone (being used here by some as a red herring) has absolutely nothing to do with Church doctrine on abortion.
Thank you.
And the only people who took advantage of the girl’s plight for the sake of “witnessing” were anti-Catholic commentators. They also happened to screw up the whole story because they were more interested in thumping the Church than they were in the welfare of an 11 year-old girl.
As the Catholic Bishops of the United States have stated for many years, the use of the name Catholic as a platform for promoting the taking of innocent human life and ridiculing the Church is offensive not only to Catholics, but to all who expect honesty and forthrightness in public discourse. We state once again with the strongest emphasis: “Because of its opposition to the human rights of some of the most defenseless members of the human race, and because its purposes and activities deliberately contradict essential teachings of the Catholic faith…Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization” (Administrative Committee, US National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1993).”
C.L. I am asking you to stick to the issues and not to make personal attacks against other people or to impute motives from their statements. The following accusations and personal attacks are not based on evidence and are extremely unfair:
There is NOTHING bigoted about claiming that priests are both unable to get pregnant and not supposed to engage in any form of sexual activity and thus experientially unqualified to dispense advice on either activity. The same point was made by a previous male commenter and I was agreeing with him. It is interesting that you have consistently chosen only to launch personal attacks against female commenters on this thread.
Anna said the Catholic Leadership, not the Catholic Church, and asked where was the gender representation in that leadership for which you claim such diversity.
You think they do and you are a guy. She thinks they don’t and she is a woman. How is your experience of greater value than hers?
Unlike unmarried female members of the Labor party, Catholic priests are not supposed to engage in any form of sexual relations and cannot themselves get pregnant. Saying the same about an unmarried woman is ridiculous.
I repeat for the fourth time: I quoted VERBATIM a media report from a very well-respected global media outlet. When they published a report that differed from the original, I also posted an update with a link to the new report. To claim that I “wanted” people to believe something implies that I made it up out of thin air and you should really stop being so dishonest since you have been clearly informed of the facts on several occasions. To claim an intention that you have no evidence to support is to simply make a gratuitous personal attack.
You have sounded mean frequently throughout this thread and it has been both unwarranted and unpleasant. The Catholic Church continues to exert power and influence over society in Australia and elsewhere (particularly in relation to population policy and development policy in relation to HIV/AIDS prevention). This influence affects non-Catholics in their lives and their work and we have the right to comment on it.
The only person who has been subjected to personal attacks on this thread, Cristy, has been me – as more than one commenter has noted.
Catholic priests are sons, brothers, family members and – in a not inconsiderable number of cases – husbands and fathers. They don’t dispense much sexual advice anyway. Most of that kind of ministry is carried out by marriage counsellors (always Catholic married couples) or pastoral workers for agencies like Centacare (in which I think women probably predominate). To say priests are “uniquely unhelpful at dispensing advice on family or sexuality-related matters” is – on the face of it – a prejudiced observation. Insofar as unexpected pregnancy is concerned, Catholic women in various roles would tend to predominate in the Church’s pastoral response.
As you can see, most of the priesthood’s “power” is simply to safeguard the teaching that abortion is morally wrong. This doctrine has been held by the Church since the beginning.
Anna said the Catholic Leadership, not the Catholic Church, and asked where was the gender representation in that leadership for which you claim such diversity.
She made a comparison of Catholic leadership and the Labor Party. Currently, only one woman leads the ALP in nine Australian jurisdictions. Women in the Church have far more firepower than that.
You think they do and you are a guy. She thinks they don’t and she is a woman. How is your experience of greater value than hers?
It isn’t – unless she isn’t a Catholic (in which case it is) – and I never said it was.
Unlike unmarried female members of the Labor party, Catholic priests are not supposed to engage in any form of sexual relations and cannot themselves get pregnant. Saying the same about an unmarried woman is ridiculous.
So a menopausal and happily celibate Julia Gillard (or an infertile lesbian) would have to resign from Parliament because they’d be “uniquely unhelpful at dispensing advice on family or sexuality-related matters.”
Interesting.
Men are perfectly (indeed equally) entitled to express their views on abortion. The children concerned are their children. Personally, I think it’s extremely inadvisable to renew that old 1950s attitude that pregnancy and childbirth are secret women’s business and men needn’t involve themselves, other than physically and financially.
I quoted VERBATIM a media report from a very well-respected global media outlet.
You quoted from The Guardian.
To claim that I “wantedâ€? people to believe something implies…
I didn’t claim you wanted people to believe anything. I wrote:
“I don’t think I pretended you made up the story, Cristy. I just think you wanted it to be as straightforward as The Guardian presented it because that fitted a certain stereotype.”
The Catholic Church continues to exert power and influence over society in Australia and elsewhere (particularly in relation to population policy and development policy in relation to HIV/AIDS prevention). This influence affects non-Catholics in their lives and their work and we have the right to comment on it.
So you Cristy have the right to comment on the Catholic Church but unmarried males have no right to comment on family, relationships, sexuality or abortion.
That sounds like a double-standard.
You have said more than enough C.L. Please stop commenting.