The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe US bishops and abortion law
by Richard McBrien on Jun. 21, 2010
Late this year, Georgetown University Press will publish a new book by Fr. Charles E. Curran, who is widely regarded as the leading Catholic moral theologian in the United States and one of the Catholic church's most distinguished moral theologians worldwide.
Curran is currently the Scurlock University Professor of Human Values at Southern Methodist University and a priest of the diocese of Rochester, N.Y.
Curran's new book is titled The Social Mission of the U.S. Catholic Church: A Theological Perspective. The eighth and final chapter, "The U.S. Bishops and Abortion," is unusually insightful, and I am indebted to it for this and next week's columns.
Professor Curran notes that the U.S. bishops' involvement with abortion law changed dramatically after the U.S. Supreme Court's historic Roev. Wade decision in January 1973. At their annual meeting the following November, the bishops expressed strong support for a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn.
Some bishops feared that this new emphasis on abortion and the call for organized political activity in each congressional district would make the Catholic church look like a single-issue voice, while subordinating other issues involving human rights and social justice.
Every four years since 1976, however, the bishops have issued a statement reminding Catholics that, while the abortion issue is of great moral importance, it is not the only life issue about which Catholics should be concerned when entering the voting booth.
The bishops have been careful to insist that they do not presume to instruct Catholics on how to vote. After the 1984 election, when a pair of leading cardinals were publicly critical of Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president and a Catholic with a pro-choice voting record, the bishops modified their quadrennial statement to include the words "or opposing."
Thus, the bishops neither endorse nor oppose candidates for the presidency and vice presidency. The opposition of these two cardinals and of other bishops to the Ferraro candidacy was viewed by some as equivalent to an endorsement of the Republican ticket.
In 1976, the first presidential election since the Roev. Wade decision, the then-president of the bishops' conference, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, elevated the abortion issue to such a central place that many concluded that the bishops were supporting the candidacy of Gerald Ford, the Republican, over Jimmy Carter, the Democrat.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Bernardin not only backed away from this impression, but in due course he developed what he called a consistent-ethic-of-life approach to abortion and related moral issues.
For several years thereafter the bishops endorsed now-Cardinal Bernardin's consistent-ethic-of-life framework, that is, until 1989 when they unanimously passed a resolution making abortion a moral issue of the highest priority. When Cardinal Bernardin died in 1996, the consistent-ethic-of-life approach died with him, according to Charles Curran.
Under the impact of Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical, Evangelium vitae, the bishops in 1998 applied papal teaching to the U.S. scene, calling abortion and also euthanasia preeminent threats to human dignity.
But the bishops went even further than that. They reinterpreted the consistent-ethic-of-life principle in a way that differed from Cardinal Bernardin's original idea.
While opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to other life-issues, the bishops pointed out, neither can being "right" on these other issues excuse a wrong choice on abortion and euthanasia.
Around the same time, the bishops turned their increased attention to Catholic politicians, almost all Democrats, with a pro-choice voting record. Some bishops denied these public figures the right to speak in Catholic venues or to receive awards from Catholic organizations, and some went so far as to threaten them with exclusion from Holy Communion.
The drift away from Cardinal Bernardin's consistent-ethic-of-life approach and toward at least indirect support of the Republican Party's political agenda accelerated as the composition of the American hierarchy became more conservative, thanks to the appointments of John Paul II.
This trend reached a fever-pitch during the 2004 presidential campaign when the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry, a Catholic, for president. There were bishops who claimed it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for him.
Even though the Democratic candidate in 2008, Senator Barack Obama, was not a Catholic, the same drumbeat of opposition continued against the Democratic Party.
The statement issued by the bishops before that election differed markedly from their previous statements issued every four years since 1976.
Abortion was portrayed as an intrinsically evil act that can never be justified. Some bishops took this to mean that abortion "trumps" all other moral issues.
The bishops were well on the way to making the abortion issue a litmus test for Catholics.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
I admire much of Fr Curran's
I admire much of Fr Curran's writing but I understand that he no longer retains a license to teach moral theology under Catholic auspices. If independent Catholic journalism is to thrive. describing him as "the leading Catholic moral theologian in the United States" without qualification is disingenuous. Black mark, NCR
Agreed. As much as I disagree
Agreed. As much as I disagree with the actions Rome has taken towards Fr. Curran, what you say should have been noted in the article.
There was a guy 2000 years
There was a guy 2000 years ago who had problems with his "license to teach moral theology..."
Indeed. Jesus was not even a
Indeed.
Jesus was not even a Christian, much less a Catholic.
If Jesus were to present himself to Rome, would the pope deny him a license to teach "Catholic Theology" unless the Lord were to renounce his Jewish faith???
Charles Curran is a de facto Roman Catholic theologian who has been prohibited from teaching theology under official RC auspices.
Given the papal and episcopal crap thrown our way in recent years, I wouldn't pay much heed to B16 and JPII.
Joseph "who is widely
Joseph "who is widely regarded as the leading Catholic moral theologian in the United States and one of the Catholic church's most distinguished moral theologians worldwide."
...
Is there anything that screams "1970s silliness" as the lionizing of this passe 'scholar'?
I mean, Charles Curran? Is there anyone with a bigger 'name' with less impact on where the American church is heading?
"Jesus was not even a
"Jesus was not even a Christian, much less a Catholic."
Ummm....followers of Jesus are Christian (Catholic---Universal), The Church founded by Jesus and still around safegaurding His teachings.......regardless of how unpopular they are to the current culture as they were when He was nailed to a cross for them.
And his name was Jesus, and
And his name was Jesus, and he established a Church to which he gave his authority to teach moral theology, and that Church said Fr. Curran could no longer do so in a Catholic institution.
Dear Ben, You are wasting
Dear Ben, You are wasting your time trying to inform Joseph. His claim to fame is to stop all financial donations to the Catholic Church in the hope it falls apart. What an example to set for any human!
Sometimes institutions ---
Sometimes institutions --- like individuals --- must "hit bottom" before they begin to pick themselves up.
Rome and its lackey bishops have yet to hit bottom.
I hope we're witnessing "breakdown before breakthrough".
I merely want to hasten the process of renewal.
Thank you! You are an island
Thank you! You are an island of sanity in another sea of... well... I won't use the word.
I for one am all too familliar with Fr. McBrien's tactics. Did he really think he could slip Curran in as the "Premier Catholic Theologian" without notice or push-back??!! Ironically it is these same people who try to detract from the intellect of Orthodox Catholics by espousing a "Vatican is controlling you so think for yourself" mentality.
Anyhow, I dare say that McBrien ...and Curran for that matter... are leftovers from their day which continue to increase in irrelevence.
Ben on Jun. 24, 2010. You
Ben on Jun. 24, 2010.
You stated:
"And his name was Jesus, and he established a Church to which he gave his authority to teach moral theology, and that Church said Fr. Curran could no longer do so in a Catholic institution."
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ben,
Jesus did nothing of the sort. Theology is the study ABOUT God. Jesus sent his followers to preach the Gospel---to teach others about the Kingdom of Heaven, that God is Father (God=Abba=Daddy), and how much God cares about them.
Jesus was not Catholic. The Apostles were not Catholic. St. Paul was not Catholic. The early followers of Christ were called 'Christians', whose lives were changed, not by following 'moral theology', but by living out the Gospel, as taught by Jesus.
What we have today is "Churchianity'. People are taught moral and systematic theology, how to run schools and programs to create more Catholics and how the administration of liturgy and sacraments are to be conducted. But the Gospel lifestyle that was genuine and transformative to the early Christians---that is ignored. And since Curran also believes and teaches a 'gospel lifestyle' rather than a moralistic belief system---he is not welcome in the institutionalized church.
"And his name was Jesus," you
"And his name was Jesus," you got that part correct. However, it is doubtful that Jesus ever intended to found a Church...He lived and died a Jew. He and his followers pronounced the Kingdom of God was at hand...that before many of his followers saw death the kingdom was here or before they were to visit all of Israel the Kingdom would come...where say would He found a Church. Early on Paul felt the time was upon us. It was not until late in his ministry that his views changed.
Christianity at the time was a gathering, hence 'ecclesia', and women had a vital role to play. No way would Jesus recognize what is present in the Church now as His, nor would He, Himself, be recognized. The Catholic Church is eternal, spiritual, and offering grace to all Christians. The Roman Church is materialistic, wealthy, and has a hierarchy of arrogance, self-absorption, and with a deaf ear to the cries and pleas of its members. It is that Roman Church which failed to hear the learned pleas of a moral theologian, Fr. Curran,and expelled him from teaching in its material Church. Fr. Curran will always teach moral theology to those willing to learn and listen to his wisdom.
Fr. Curran is still a
Fr. Curran is still a Catholic. He is still a priest. He is still a practicing theologian. He is still brilliant. But, like the vast majority of Catholic theologians, he no longer has a "mandatum" to be an "official" Catholic theologian, whatever that means. Last time I checked the bishops were the official teachers of Catholic theology even though the great majority of them do not have degrees in theology. What having a "mandatum" seems to mean is a theologian who adheres to whatever happens to be the dominant theological opinions of those currently in power. You seem to want us to discount Fr. Curran's views simply because he no longer has such a mandatum. I, on the other hand, would discount those who do have a mandatum, in many cases sacrificing their reason to be propagandists for those in power.
Well put!!! Thank you.
Well put!!!
Thank you.
Most Bishops don't have a
Most Bishops don't have a degree in theology? Really? Every priest earns an M.div which is a master's degree in theology. Most earn an M.A. which is also a masters degree in theology. Today thanks to technology, distance learning, and greater cooperation among seminaries many also are earning an S.T.B. Which is...you guessed it another graduate degree in theology. Most Bishops do have advanced degrees beyond these.
"What having a "mandatum" seems to mean is a theologian who adheres to whatever happens to be the dominant theological opinions of those currently in power."
This is one of the more ridiculous statements on this board. When a mandatum is given it is weighed and investigated using 2,000 years of evidence and teaching. Hardly has anything to do with those who are in power.
Those are different degrees -
Those are different degrees - the M.Div is not the same concentration as a master's in theology. But not everyone who studies theology - at whatever level - is considered a theologian, unless they go on to devote themselves to that area of study full time, particularly in academic settings.
Do you actually concur with
Do you actually concur with the decision of Josef Ratzinger as head of the "Holy Office of the Inquisition" to oust Curran from a tenured position as a university professor because he spoke out against an encyclical on birth control?
It was an encyclical, not an *ex cathedra* pronouncement. I remember it well when the encyclical was issued that Paul VI went against the recommendations of his own committee. It was the ‘talk of the town’ way before the Internet.
Was it really so bad that Fr. Curran spoke out against Paul VI's encyclical on birth control?
Do you know ANYONE who follows what that encyclical prescribes?
Neither do I.
"I don't know ANYONE who
"I don't know ANYONE who voted for Nixon!"
It seems to me that Charles
It seems to me that Charles Curran is still very much a Catholic in union with the Archbishop of Rome, currently Benedict xvi. Curran is also in union with his bishop who is also in union with the Archbishop of Rome. These relationships along with his obvious desire to be one, makes him a Catholic. A teaching license does not make one a Catholic, and the lack of one does not keep one from being a Catholic.
Curran's subject is moral theology and his Catholic life clearly influences his writings on topics related to moral theology.
A black mark? I don't think
A black mark? I don't think so. Fr. Curran is not without qualifications to teach, nor is it disingenuous to call him a "Catholic theologian". Lay people teach in Catholic schools and universities all the time. Most are without any form of license. We have catechists and religious teaching the Catholic faith, or some version of it, without any licensing requirments of any kind.
Licensing by the Church to teach today ranks right up there with gaining an online certificate from some tax-dodging outfit in Hollywood licensing applicants to become a bishop of the Universal Life Church. Fr. Curran has the scholarship, experience, charisma, and the following to teach Catholic theology. Plain and simple.
I suspect he's very good at teaching other theologicial systems as well. Nobody cares if his teachings represent the Catholic Church and it's "magisterium". His intended audience and student following simply aren't going to concern themselves the institution for which he purports to represent.
I agree. Well said. Fr.
I agree. Well said.
Fr. Curran is head and shoulders above some of the awful people who teach at Catholic universities.
For example: Douglas Feith taught at Georgetown and is a Republican killer(Neocon and PNAC killers like Weigel, et.al). Feith helped GWB do his evil agenda of death for oil and oil profits. Certainly Feith would call himself Pro-life and Family Values; so the pope would like him and sanction him as a Pro-life person. I guess some kind of killing is okay with the pope(s). Since this was the killing of Muslims, that must be what made it okay with the pope. I wonder what Feith is going to think when the pope goes back to killing Jews, his people. In a moment of insight, Georgetown got rid of him.
I agree that abortion is
I agree that abortion is wrong. But we cannot legislate morality. Our Catholic Theology identifies that God give us free choice (and hope that we choose to do what is right for his desires for us).
I feel that a law againt abortion would have the same effect as prohibition. The use of alchohol move into backrooms and dirty basements for those that wanted to drink. The wealthy went to europe. And crime bosses and rich families were made richer smuggling alcohol into the US. I see the same thing happening to abortion.
the best way I seee us limiting abortions is to offer the social services that are needed to make giving birth and raising a child more desireable than abortion.
We can also help the situation by building personal relationships so that risky behavior - that leads to unwanted pregnancy - can be avoided. What I see is that many people substitute a sexual relationship for one of concern and care.
Social Justice calls for us to act to prevent the need for abortion anywhere we can and to encourage life by supporting those in need so that abortion is a less favorable choice. This requires great patience, time, and resources; but will be more just in the end.
If one defines "morality" as
If one defines "morality" as what one should or should not do, it is hard to see how we legislate anything other than morality.
You can’t legislate morality?
You can’t legislate morality? Aren’t all laws based on some kind of morality?
If you take your “God gives us free choice” reasoning to its conclusion, then, murder, theft, rape and child abuse shouldn’t be outlawed either.
Some laws are certainly based
Some laws are certainly based on moral principles. (Others, such as driving on the right or left side, are simply expedient.)
A society's laws to some extent are based on a consensus of morality. A large majority of the population agrees, for example, that "murder, theft, rape and child abuse" are wrong. Hence the laws against them.
If there was not a consensus about one of these, there might not be a law prohibiting it. That would not make doing it right for you or me. But I assume we would avoid doing it anyway because we thought it was wrong.
No one forces anyone to have an abortion. But there is no law against it at the moment because the consensus is lacking across our society.
The really difficult case is what happens when there is a law that FORCES someone to do something that he or she thinks is wrong, such as become a soldier and kill people he or she doesn't even know at sight or with remote missiles.
The other difficult case is If someone thinks that the absence of a law leads to violations of others' civil rights (abortion would fit in here for some citizens), then there are methods that have been used to dramatize the issues and raise awareness in society (for example, as King and others did in the 50s and 60s) to build the necessary consensus.
I don't know if any of this makes sense. I'm not a lawyer, and I've just fried my brain thinking this way. Time to run it under cold water.
I once heard from a sociology
I once heard from a sociology professor that "all laws are written to protect the wealthy". I wonder if this may have some relevance to considerations of "Church Laws?
Abortions took place long
Abortions took place long before Roe v. Wade. Abortion has always existed and always will exist. It took place in the dark, without statisticians to keep track of the number. It sometimes came about by a deliberately good, hard horseback ride. Or it was accomplished in back alleys or by quacks or moonlighting doctors or with coat hangers. Criminalizing abortion will simply return us to those good old days. So Luke is right. Social justice is the answer--and even that won't eliminate abortion entirely.
__________All Catholics
__________All Catholics should be required to take lie detector tests about abortion before being certified to receive the sacraments.
__________Since nearly half of all women have had an abortion by age 45, there are people receiving the sacraments who should be banned.
__________(And while they're at it, the bishops should require all Catholics to take lie detector tests about contraception.)
__________ Ratzinger promised a leaner meaner Church, and it's time to crack the whip and eliminate those who can't play by the rules.
(Women who have had abortions: explain how you got unexcommunicated, if you did.)
quite simply put - the
quite simply put - the sacrament of reconciliation!
having such a burden lifted off oneself allows not only healing to our damaged psyches and emotions, but gives one also the PHYSICAL sensation of the burdens of sin melting away!
the regret may take twenty years to begin to surface, as in my case. at the time, i had no problem at all going and getting the abortion when i did - it was not a difficult decision over which i struggled - it was simply a logical way to dispose of a minor annoyance, something that impinged upon my lifestyle. and believe me, even as a woman i am not alone in thinking this way ...
but the wounds and the scars emerge eventually, when one becomes vulnerable at some later point in life ... when one comes to realize ones selfishness in this regard.
i finally realized that if i was to believe scripture - all things work together for GOOD for those who love God - abortion could never be an answer, no matter what the situation. supporting (including financing a friend's) abortion is an "easy out" (no matter WHAT the circumstances) because then we, ourselves, do not become responsible to expend the time, money and effort that supporting, caring for, healing and nurturing BOTH mother and child demands of each of us. (and, as i continue to struggle with my own selfishness in many areas, i do not judge others in this regard. i simply point out the experience of myself and many others i have known in my life.)
please also note that people excommunicate THEMSELVES - the roman catholic church's "formal" excommunication (i forget the latin term and am a bit too lazy to look it up right now; and i'm certain others will have it handy in their minds) is merely a acknowledgment by the church (after trying to reconcile the individual with the church, out of love and concern for the person) that the individual has made the decision to no longer be in union with the roman catholic church. WE EXCOMMUNICATE OURSELVES!!!
Thank you for sharing your
Thank you for sharing your journey, as I know that it does speak to many who have had journeys similar to yours. Yet, not every women who has an abortion has it because it would be "a logical way to dispose of a minor annoyance; one that impinged on my lifestyle". For many who are addressing this issue, it is easier to reduce the reason for having an abortion to one of convenience, but, in truth, as the recent tragic case in Pheonix shows, there have been others whose reason has been much more complex. I know of some of these women, who after years of prayer and reflection, are at peace with their decision and feel that, given the conditions, it was the correct one.
Some will still say that they believe that having an abortion under any circumstances is morally wrong, I understand that. But it would be dishonest to say or imply that all decisions to have an abortions are because it is a minor annoyance for the women.
Peace, prayers and God's love to all who are struggling with this issue.
Ahem...inconveniently
Ahem...inconveniently truthful opposition to NCR dogma should be kept to oneself.
I can´t say that I understand
I can´t say that I understand what point you are making. Since NCR approved this comment being posted, how are they working to make this contrary opinion not available? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Have you not noticed the many posts that are critical of NCR and their editorials? Also, have you looked at the willingness of any conversative Catholic paper or one that is overseen by the bishops to allow any posts that is not in line with their thinking?
It is strange enought that you´re making an accusation, while not supporting it, but you are making in on the heels of NCR doing just what you are criticizing them of not doing. If you are going to address the post, than it would seem to me that, to be accurate, you would be commenting on NCR´s allowing contrary opinions to be posted, not "kept to oneself".
i think (being the woman who
i think (being the woman who posted the above personal abortion story) that anonymous was being sarcastic about the fact that my story was inconveniently truthful and went against the grain of 'belief' for people who have the good of women at their heart.
it is much easier for us to believe that abortion is a tough decision in all cases;
that many women do not have abortions for convenience; that a vast number of women who have abortions are "forced" by boyfriends, husbands, parents and other family members to get the abortion or risk alienation and lack of support;
that there are no harmful (physical or psychological or societal or emotional) repercussions to getting an abortion;
that many women have an abortion because they are not aware of the options and help available to them to support them not only through their pregnancy, but beyond;
that the abortion industry/provider has ONLY the good of the woman in mind (and not monetary gain...oh, no) and ALWAYS informs the woman of the risks and makes certain that the woman is safe medically before she leaves the facility (from both personal and others experiences i KNOW this is completely FALSE!);
that even during the "procedure" the staff is caring and helpful to the patient (what a total LIE - if the woman is in pain .... as in my case among others i know .... the staff laughs(!) about it DURING the abortion procedure);
that serious infection does often result from abortions done even at six weeks (usually requiring a hospital stay and IV anti-biotics, just a few short days after the abortion).
these are inconvenient truths, because to acknowledge what REALLY happens would impinge upon our 'right' to abortion on demand.
and don't think that just because i am vehement about both the reasons women will get abortions and what really happens in these 'clinics' that i don't still struggle against my own individual 'desire' for my own individual will for myself and my life. it is still difficult, psychologically and spiritually, to be willing to accept that it is not a "good" to have whatever i want, no matter what the consequences (i.e. SIN).
Anonymous, I share with you
Anonymous, I share with you the distress of the casualness of many who have an abortion, but I sense that you are seeing the issue thru a distorted lens. I say this because of your posts. The first did not give any expression to those who have had abortions for reasons other than convenience, leaving out their stories altogether. And, while your second post does, indeed, mention many misconceptions, it too does not allow for the many cases that do not fall within your description. I just look of a balance presentation when I am reviewing any issue. Your story and the points you make are valid, but I don't think that they are also, incomplete.
Peace and Prayers for your continued journey.
john david - my apologies. i
john david -
my apologies. i didn't take care to edit my last post very well, using the word, "that" in instances where it changed the meaning of what i was trying to say.
my basic thought was not that most women have abortions for casual reasons, but that a vast majority also do so because they are "forced" into that choice by boyfriends, family, lack of awareness of support and other options available both during pregnancy and after birth, they are frightened and are easily "convinced" that an abortion will avoid problems for them if they are in school or unable to support a/another child or are working just to take care of their other responsibilities at present, etc.
my point was also that we, as individuals in this society, are quite unwilling to expend our own time, energy, effort, selves to go out of our way to help women who are pregnant.
who of us, in actuality, is willing to put up a pregnant friend, let alone a teenager we don't know in our homes for months?
who of us is willing to help a woman or a girl whose boyfriend (or other person) insists that she have an abortion if she wants to continue on?
who of us is willing to say, "hey, i know some people who can show you other options in case you want to have the child or allow the possibility of adoption or just need financial or other assistance to keep attending school while you are pregnant" ...?
MUCH less effort on our part to help a woman make a decision for an abortion and perhaps even to help pay for it.
there are many programs to help women heal from the after-effects of abortion, which is an incredible ministry! thank goodness that the Holy Spirit has raised up people to bring peace to the women in these situations!
but knowing many women who have also had abortions (for reasons other than just convenience as well) - we DON'T speak about our trauma to others; we DON'T ask friends to listen as we talk about what we feel. society is not willing to listen to the "other" side of the story, because we are then faced with inconvenient truths.
we as a society believe, for the most part, that helping someone with her decision to go and have an abortion in a few days is what really helps women. there is no recognition on our part of long-term consequences, physical and psychological, for the woman involved. and since it is such a shameful, hush-hush type of thing to admit that one has had one (and especially that one regrets it), women suffer needlessly with this trauma.
it's really nice to talk about reducing the "need" for abortion - but exactly WHAT are any of us actually DOING about it?
it is easy to be "pro-choice" and it is easy to be "pro-abortion" (i purposefully categorize them as semantically separate) ... but "pro-choice" really involves us in providing options so that an actual choice can be made.
and "pro-life" involves caring for the mother's psychological, physical and financial needs as well so that BOTH mother and child can have life (and have it abundantly).
i was young and callous and raised to believe that a woman's right over her body is a fait accompli.
as a disabled person at this point in my life, it scares me (literally) when society will not assist the vulnerable (both the baby in the womb and the mother). what is to become of me when "I" am no longer of use and only a burden to society?
the netherlands in many instances already "assist a patient" in dying, WITHOUT the patient's permission NOR the permission of the family. it will not be many years off in our society, believe me, as many of our children are raised today with a view to individual entitlement. and what happens to everyone when we get old and the children finds us burdensome in their lives? soon, we, too, will impinge upon their freedom to live life as they so desire....
just a warning.
Anonymous, your points are
Anonymous, your points are valid and ones with which I mostly agree. Yet, I want all to be able to tell their stories and, when presenting a situation, I desire to hear of those whose experiences are different than what we are told they should be; either be a secular society or by the leaders of our Church.
I think abortion is more complex than the Church wants to acknowledge. No situation makes that more clear than the recent one in Pheonix. It is also more complex than those who insist that there are no psychological consequences for those who decide to have an abortion. And the stories of those women who have had abortions for the reasons you have given should be heard. As should those who have suffered terrible heartache from the experience. Also, there are those women who have felt that an abortion was the correct decision and have reached a peace with the tragedy of the circumstances. As much as one can insist that there are no negative consequences for the women who has an abortion, it ignores all of those women who have. But, it is equally wrong to insist that all women who have an abortion, come to regret the decision. That is equally false. As I have said, some continue to feel that it was the correct decision.
And, finally, I pray for you to experience God's peace in your struggle with your disabilities at this time in your life. This journey of life; of faith, is not easy, I know. God Bless
__________All
__________All Catholics
Submitted by Pro-Choice (not verified) on Jun. 21, 2010.
__________All Catholics should be required to take lie detector tests about abortion before being certified to receive the sacraments.
__________Since nearly half of all women have had an abortion by age 45, there are people receiving the sacraments who should be banned.
__________(And while they're at it, the bishops should require all Catholics to take lie detector tests about contraception.)
__________ Ratzinger promised a leaner meaner Church, and it's time to crack the whip and eliminate those who can't play by the rules.
(Women who have had abortions: explain how you got unexcommunicated, if you did.)
reply
___________________________________
Give all bishops, cardinals, popes, and priests lie detector tests about their sex-life and ban them from saying Mass if they have ever broken their vow of celibacy, church, and or civil law.
Demand they take a lie detector test on the tenents of the catholic church once a year to see if they really believe in the presence, body and blood of Jesus in the host. Ban them if they fail.
On birth control: Make conservative families sign away the right of their children to ever use birth control ie condoms, pills etc or date and or marry anyone who wants to use birth control. Make catholic men and women take lie detector tests to see if they have ever cheated on marriage vows or used prostitutes and if they have ban them. Do it! Kick them out right now. Let's get crackin conservatives!!!!!
"Let's get crackin
"Let's get crackin conservatives!!!!!"
Yes, let's give lie detector tests to everyone, bishops, cardinals, popes, priests about their sex life and ban them from the sacraments and the Church! They have excommunicated themselves!!!
Let's whip and beat the truth out of people. Let's have a real inquisition and burn people at the stake too!! Why stop there?
Kick everybody out of the Church and burn it to the ground because we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God!
Yeah let's crack that whip
Yeah let's crack that whip and get them libbers conservatives. Sickem conservatives!!!!!
"Leaner meaner"? I don't
"Leaner meaner"? I don't recall Jesus' using either word in the Gospels, and I'm sure that isn't what he envisioned or desired in His church.
Are you serious? First of
Are you serious?
First of all, in point of fact, so-called lie detectors don't detect veracity and mendacity. They detect nervousness. So, taking a lie detector test would tell us only if someone was nervous.
Second of all, even if it's statistically true that half of all women have had an abortion (which seems like a made up statistic) it doesn't mean that half of all Catholic women have had an abortion and not gone to the confession.
Third of all, the Church is for the saved and for the sinning. The Church militant is for all the baptized. Having a lie-detector based certification system is literally the dumbest idea ever. The Church militant isn't a Church of the pure, and it's that central insight that separates us from the Gnostics, Cathars, and Protestants. In a sense, all heresy is puritanism; if you want a pure Church, you're free to join one. As for me, I will remain Catholic.
Fourth of all, when do you propose having this lie detector based certification? It would have to be mandatory before every Sunday and weekday Mass, since, after all, the certificates would probably be easily forged. Would the lie detector be subject to the seal of confession? If so, what good is a certificate if it's secret; if not, why have confession at all if your sins will be publicly exposed while attached to a lie detector?
While heretics and those who have incurred excommunication should, of course, refrain from communion, and particularly public heretics and those publicly excommunicated should be publicly denied communion, a lie detector based certification system is quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read (and I read Fr. McBrien's columns often, to give you a sense of what sort of terrible ideas you're competing with).
1) You're wrong about lie
1) You're wrong about lie detector tests. Educate yourself.
2) You should also educate yourself about how many women, including Catholics, have had abortions.
3) You should also educate yourself about heresy. Not "all heresy is puritanism", but you'll find that all heresies gave women more power than the men who ruled the Church could handle. Burning heretics and uppity women at stakes solved many problems.
4) When would the polygraph tests be administered? Catholics would make appointments to visit the chancery and submit to the test. (Lots of FBI agents are Catholic/Opus Dei. They could administer the tests.) Then, with the bishop's seal impressed in sealing wax on the certificate, the Catholic who had passed the test could return home, secure in the knowledge that he could receive the sacraments for a year. (Testing required every year to keep certificate up to date.)
5) Grow up.
You all fell for this
You all fell for this tweaking! It was not meant to be taken seriously, like where would lie detectors be used.
I am not pro-abortion as the bishops believed when they boycotted the president's attendance at Notre Dame. Pro-abortion is not the same as pro-choice, which I am. I will not force a woman who does not SHARE OUR ETHOS to have the child.
Birth control; Starting marriage in two furnished rooms w/ a shared bath one floor down, then having 5 children by our 8th anniversary--we got married because my school was 3 hours away and I had 15 months before graduation. I obviously didn't make it and that first baby caused me countless tears, both then and later when I picked up my education. God gave us reason and reason says we limit births. Can the world sustain another billion people? Npw married Catholics blithely accept fellowships w/o worrying about conception.
That Phoenix bishop needs a taking down by the pope!Sr. Mary Margaret followed all the rules and was excommunicated. She's worth three of him. Amen
Pro-Choice is the most evil
Pro-Choice is the most evil dangerous phrase in our day.
Look, I'm a liberal Catholic who believes in:
contraception that keeps a sperm from reaching an egg,
I believe that keeping women out of the priesthood is a grave sin that John Paul II particularly had to pay for on his judgement day,
I believe mandatory celibacy is a crock
I believe the pompous magisterium is a bunch of dildos running around playing dress-up who take no responsibility for what they say
I believe gravely ill people have the right to die with dignity and not suffer for no reason.
But, abortion is/was/and always will be murder. It's not a Catholic judgement or any other religion's judgement, and it certainly isn't a woman's choice to kill another person. It's a legal issue.
I feel terrible for the rape victim, is the answer to murder someone who was an innocent bystander? - it's ludicrous. Why does that person not have a right to live because you were a victim of a crime - what did the baby have to do with you getting raped? Sometimes you get a bad break and you get pregnant - well tough. I had bad luck and got brain cancer, do I get to go kill someone over it?
I understand your thinking
I understand your thinking and I respect it, but there are also other circumstances concerning cases, as the recent one in Pheonix illustrates. I believe that I have listened to all sides of this debate with an open and prayerful mind (yes, open and prayerful people come to different conclusions - One of the mysteries of faith), but I keep stumbling up against a few things. One is that I just don't see how this "one size fits all" thinking for varied and very complex moral situations works. I don't think that it does. So that leave me with the question of with whom should we leave the decision. I believe one may work to influence the mother about any decision she may have to make concerning abortion, but that as long as the embryo, fetus or baby (whatever word one chooses) is living inside and attached to the mother, she is the one in charge.
I know that there are those who feel differently and I respect those who do. And I know that my position will upset and anger some. I have been attacked for stating this position before, so I am pretty prepared for whatever comes.
In the meantime, I pray for all those who are struggling with how to feel and deal with this issue. May all have God's peace.
1.) Lie detector tests can
1.) Lie detector tests can measure only physiological responses, e.g., skin conductivity, breath rate, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. These are indicators of nervousness, not, strictly speaking, of lying.
2.) Even if 50% of all Catholic women aged 40-50 have had abortions, this doesn't mean that even any Catholic women of that age who attend mass and present themselves for communion have had abortions. Unless you're surveying women as they receive, you're statistic here is useless.
3.) Cathars didn't give women more power. Waldensians didn't give women more power. Joachimites didn't give women more power. Lutherans didn't give women more power. Calvinists didn't give women more power. Manicheans didn't give women more power. Gnostics didn't give women more power. Sedevacantists didn't give women more power. Other than the Montanists (which really only gave one woman more power) and the womenpriests "movement, (which barely deserves the name, since they have about 20 people)," I can't name a major heresy that has been about giving women more power. However, what all of these major heresies have had in common with each other is a desirer for a purer Church.
4.) What if someone submits to the polygraph and gets an abortion / changes their opinion about abortion in the span of a year? Would the agents administering the test be subject to the seal of confession?
5.) Your use of the phrase "uppity women," combined with the unbelievable idiocy of your idea, and your screen name, is also suspicious. Clearly, you're probably a too clever by half pro-abortion Catholic who thinks you're engaging in clever satire of the anti-abortion position. How can anyone sincerely believe making people take a lie detector test to receive communion is a good idea?
1) Educate yourself about
1) Educate yourself about lie detector tests.
2) Huh?
3) You're clueless about heresies. Educate yourself, starting with Cathars and the percentage of women among the perfects and the preachers.
4) Huh?
5) Would you pass the lie detector test?
How do you think lie detector
How do you think lie detector tests work? They measure physiological responses people have while answering questions. They don't read people's minds or magically discern the truth. It only gives physiological measures, which can then be interpreted as reflecting someone calmly telling the truth, or anxiously lying. This is not a direct measure of veracity, only of physiology.
If you look at contemporary medieval sources, e.g., St. Dominic's letters about Cathars, or Bernard Gui's inquisition guide, there's no mention of Cathars being particularly female. You're literally lying now.
LOL I'm "literally lying"
LOL
I'm "literally lying" because I prefer history to "contemporary medieval sources" like Dominic and an "inquisition guide"?
LOL
I'll suggest once again: educate yourself. Start here:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=++women+in+cathar+movement&aq=f&aqi=&aql=...
Fun Fun Fun. Be like the
Fun Fun Fun. Be like the Catholics of the 50's and early 60's, Make love at 2pM on Sat. Of course using non Catholic approaches, and at 4 PM hit the box and you are all cleaned up for Sunday. Don't think we had Mass on Sat. Pre Vat2.
Your comment would
Your comment would undoubtedly make the baby Jesus cry.
Your attitude is exactly what Jesus was preaching against during his ministry. We are called for compassion and concerned, not to kick out the outcast.
We need to have a pastoral approach to the situation. I am not saying making excuses for those who have committed these sins. That is not what we are called to do, either. But to "excommunicate" those who have committed these sins is way too extreme, even for the most conservative Catholic. There are many people who may have made this mistake and has since then made confession and worked/continuing to work on their penance. But to judge them like you are suggesting... is right out blasphemy.
A wonderful comment. The
A wonderful comment. The Church Jesus founded was precisely FOR the outcasts, for the oppressed and those subject to the hatred (in any form) of others. It is beautifully detailed in the Gospels, so moving. But, does this reflect the Church of today?
I miss Cardinal Bernadin as much today as the day he died. Where are the voices calling for his sainthood? John Paul II is on a fast track for cannonization, and Bernadin is not? It is symptomatic of the times, isn't it?
My abortion was before Roe
My abortion was before Roe vs. Wade. I went to confession, although my contrition was not perfect by any means. (I don't regret the decision one bit and am grateful to the Catholic doctor who performed the abortion.)
The Franciscan who heard my confession asked me if I knew I was excommunicated. No. He quickly reassured me that he had the necessary faculties to absolve me, and he did. (Thanks to him, too.)
Why did you bother to go to
Why did you bother to go to confession? If you felt no guilt and did not repent the confession was invalid anyway. I hope you don't think you have been absolved for the past few decades.
Your knowledge and
Your knowledge and understanding of the sacrament of penance and of perfect and imperfect contrition are gravely deficient.
Here's a starting point:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm
kscrawler on Jun. 23,
kscrawler on Jun. 23, 2010.
You stated:
"Why did you bother to go to confession? If you felt no guilt and did not repent the confession was invalid anyway. I hope you don't think you have been absolved for the past few decades."
---------------------------------------------
First of all, we do not have a "Sacrament of Confession." It is properly called the Sacrament of Penance or the Sacrament of Reconciliation. More than just going in and blabbing off a shopping list of sins---Reconciliation involves also receiving spiritual guidance, advice, and clarification.
The person that you responded to---states that she did not regret her abortion. She didn't give you all the particulars of the case. Did she have another choice? Maybe not.
Since you were not the Franciscan priest hearing the penitant---stop trying to 'play' spiritual judge.
Anyone advancing such a set
Anyone advancing such a set of ideas such as these belongs in a professional mental health facility and not in a position of Church leadership. I can think of no set of proposals which will empty Peter's barque faster than a return to Torquemada and the era of the Spanish Inquisition.
The trend for American Catholicism is bleak enough as it is. The horses are stampeding out of the burning barn as it is. Soon the ashes and embers will be tended to by the uncritical and the unthinking. They appear to be very much in charge now.
Precisely what the radical right-wing in Europe and the Americas is hoping will happen. An aging pope presiding over a dead church filled to the brim with former sede vacantists and SSPX stalwarts returning to Rome to assist the papal fire brigade. Filled with fear of being damned to perdition. Assisted by the more extreme elements of Opus Dei and others who believe they're part of a Pretorian Guard of the "Elect".
Re: __________All Catholics
Re:
__________All Catholics should be required to take lie detector tests about abortion before being certified to receive the sacraments.
__________Since nearly half of all women have had an abortion by age 45, there are people receiving the sacraments who should be banned.
__________(And while they're at it, the bishops should require all Catholics to take lie detector tests about contraception.)
__________ Ratzinger promised a leaner meaner Church, and it's time to crack the whip and eliminate those who can't play by the rules.
(Women who have had abortions: explain how you got unexcommunicated, if you did.)
Wow! Those sound just like the words of Jesus. Don't they?
"nearly half of all women
"nearly half of all women have had an abortion by age 45..."
Where on God's green earth did you come up with that nonsense?
http://www.google.com/webhp?r
http://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#rls=ig&hl=en&source=hp&q=how+many+wom...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pub
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The American bishops are,
The American bishops are, essentially, the religious spokesmen for the Republican party.
Now that is funny. How far
Now that is funny. How far to the left must you be to believe that the Bishops are shills for the Republican party.
Not very far at all,
Not very far at all, actually. It is, in fact, patently obvious that many of them are, although certainly not all of them.
And liberal Catholics like
And liberal Catholics like Charles Curran are the religious spokesmen for the Democratic Party. What's your point????
JoeR1220 - Sorry, but the
JoeR1220 -
Sorry, but the Bishops are spokesmen for the Truth as revealed by God and passed on to us across the ages.
JoeR1220 - Sorry, but the
JoeR1220 -
Sorry, but the Bishops are spokesmen for the Truth as revealed by God and passed on to us across the ages.
________
Pope to Bishops: "Don't say anything about those Priest Pedaphiles or I'll can you."
Bishops to lawyers: "What pedaphiles?"
Lawyers to Bishops: "Because you stonewalled we decided to search for the truth on our own. Here is a long list of priest pedaphiles."
Bishop to lawyers: "How did you get that list?"
Lawyers to Bishops: "'God works in mysterious ways'. Didn't God make you guys spokesmen for Truth? It's sort of like 'Jonah and The Whale'. God wanted Jonah to get to Ninevah. Against Jonah's will the whale took him there.
Dear Bishops we are the whales that will swallow you up until you answer your calling and become spokesmen for Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Until then we will reveal it for you and 'pass it on across the ages.'"
Waste of time, Fr.
Waste of time, Fr. McBrien.
Does anyone really care what the bishops think? They have shown themselves poor moral guides, and it is about time that we Catholics grow up and follow our own well informed consciences.
I know that in order to have well informed consciences, we have to listen to the magisterium, but we already know what they think on this point. Now we must listen to the Holy Spirit, someone our bishops have given very little evidence that they think She is still alive.
Unfortunately, the bishops are useless. Let them confirm our kids and sit in their ivory towers. I really think confirmation should be given all on the same day Pentecost, in all parishes throughout the world. The pastors of the parish should do it.
But then what would the bishops do?
The "magisterium" means
The "magisterium" means nothing until the reunion of Christendom is in full force. Each separate Christian community thinks it has the source of truth: either an inerrant bible, and errant hierarchy, an inerrant pope, or a combination. Like putting a treasure map together, nobody gets the gold and other loot until the map is complete.
Until such a reunion is in effect, the magisterium is simply a collection of opinions and discussion topics by old men16 open to question. Catholics are free to accept or to reject it.
Dear Fr. McBrien, " Thou
Dear Fr. McBrien, " Thou shalt not kill "! When Moses returned from the mountain-top after receiving the Ten Commandments was the aforementioned not one of the Ten? What is your point? Any form of killing is wrong litmus test or not!
Post new comment