CL: “Cristy wanted to believe people were “threatenedâ€? with excommunication.â€?

CL: I didn’t claim you wanted people to believe anything.

You have said more than enough C.L. Please stop commenting.

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.

“[Cristy] 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.â€?

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 believes the leadership of the ALP is more diverse than the Catholic Church. It isn’t (LOL).”

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.

“Pavlov’s Cat thinks Catholic women have no power. They do.”

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?

“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.â€? She is obviously unfit to be the country’s alternative health minister.”

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.

“Cristy wanted to believe people were “threatenedâ€? with excommunication.”

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.

“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.”

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.

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:

In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine–the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. [Hit the link to read about those].

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.

The Church has regarded abortion as gravely immoral from the beginning.

and

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.

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.

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.â€?
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.â€? 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 wallsâ€? 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.â€? 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.

now look what we have a link of ordination and abortion. One should have a hands off attitude to that!