The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Pushing Obama's vision: A nuclear free world
by John Dear SJ on Oct. 06, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF version[Editor's note: Fr. Dear posted this column Tuesday, days before President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.]
When President Obama presided over the United Nations Security Council recently to endorse a resolution to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, we saw a rare sight -- a sign of global leadership pointing humanity toward a new future of peace. But while his words inspired, and hope springs from his symbolic stand, nothing has changed.
Nuclear weapons still abound -- we have 25,000 on the planet -- and the nuclear industry is gathering its forces to keep the weapons in place. If they get their way, they’re guaranteed vast sums and we’re consigned to being hostages to nuclear terrorism.
Obama called the next 12 months “pivotal,” and he’s right. Here again we have a small window of opportunity. So now is our time to push.
“The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama said. “And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal.”
Just one nuclear weapon set off in a major city -- “be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris” -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people and cause major destruction, he said.
Obama spoke of “four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.” The first pillar means we have to “stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them ... If we fail to act,” he continued, “we will invite arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.”
All he says rings true, but while he talks, Obama is quietly making deals to keep the nuclear business going. He kept nuclear weapons “pit” production in his budget, and Congress has increased it, keeping the Los Alamos nuclear machine in business. More, he has promised not to press Israel to rid its land of nuclear weapons. The Orwellian “doublespeak” continues -- as do the ruthless U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’ve been traveling the past few weeks, lecturing at churches, universities and peace groups, and people seem encouraged by the president’s U.N. stand. But, like me, they are fully aware that little has changed. Most know that the wars continue, that our troops still menace the world’s poor, and that Los Alamos still brews its ominous stew of destruction.
But these grass-roots activists aren’t caving in -- they’re carrying on: organizing events, writing letters, doing what they can to disarm the world. They are, by and large, ignored by the mainstream media, but grass-roots work for peace and justice normally is. Little does the media know that change always starts at the bottom.
Last week in Salt Lake City, for example, one activist told me that the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan alone could destroy the whole world, so she keeps talking about it. If India and Pakistan ever launched their weapons, she said, the fall-out would blacken the skies and end life as we know it.
The weapons need to go, she said, and we have to keep working for that goal. Otherwise, we’re going to wake up one morning to the surreal news that nukes have been used again. Her peace group continues to speak out about not just the Indian-Pakistani arsenals, but our own. And they’re pushing Utah senators to do the right thing regarding the upcoming Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty vote.
In Bellingham, Wash., as another example, nearly 600 people gathered for the annual International Peace Day events, calling for an end to war and nuclear weapons. As we marched through town and gathered in a church, I was moved by the goodwill and palpable energy of people from all walks of life.
In fact, everywhere I go, I find people doing what they can to make a difference.
Obama said that during the next 12 months, “nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament, and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them.” Many peace groups are organizing people to do just that -- to pressure Congress to pass the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, and the U.N. to pass Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Peace groups are calling us to flood the White House and Congress with letters urging that the obscene sums for the nuclear industry go to fund healthcare, education and environmental cleanup.
They are urging us to pressure the media, hold public events, and keep bringing attention to the need for nuclear disarmament. Some are talking about gathering in New York City next spring during the U.N.’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference.
“When we have leadership in the White House interested in nuclear disarmament, it’s time for concerned citizens to step up their vocal support,” Felice Cohen Joppa of “The Nuclear Resister” told me. “If someone says they want to do something positive, we have to let our support be known. It’s not a time to be quiet. Obama’s got plenty of people who do not support the disarmament agenda. Those of us who do need to be in the streets continuing our protests and speaking out.”
“I think what happened at the U.N. with the U.S. taking responsibility and leadership was good,” activist Frida Berrigan told me. “Obama’s chairing of the Security Council was unprecedented and new. After the Bush administration, it’s phenomenal progress. But the Security Council’s resolution isn’t a roadmap for disarmament. It doesn’t get us to zero. It was about counter-proliferation, which isn’t disarmament. So there’s a lot of work to do. One out of five Americans thinks nuclear war is likely. The U.S. still spends six billion dollars a year on nuclear development. Russia has increased its nuclear spending this year.
“So the months ahead are really important. We have to re-educate ourselves and others. We need to speak about this moment as an opportunity for disarmament and pursue Obama’s vision of a nuclear free world. If we want that to happen, we have to be far more engaged. And that’s a challenge since there’s so much else to do.”
Church people especially need to lend their voice to this momentous call for disarmament. As Thomas Merton once wrote, “A genuine Christian spirituality must be profoundly concerned with all the risks and problems implied by the mere existence of nuclear stockpiles.”
I hope we can urge our priests to preach about nuclear disarmament, educate our parish communities, hold prayer vigils, lobby and demonstrate for disarmament. Pax Christi offers resources and links for those who wish to get involved. Most of all, we need to beg the God of peace every day for the gift of a nuclear free world.
“The taproot of violence in our society today is our intent to use nuclear weapons,” the late Jesuit Fr. Richard McSorley wrote famously. “Once we have agreed to that, all other evil is minor by comparison. Until we squarely face the question of our consent to use nuclear weapons, any hope of large-scale improvement of public morality is doomed to failure.” I hope we can all do whatever we can to pursue the vision of disarmament and nonviolence, and help the world move toward that harmonious day of peace.
******
For information, see: www.globalzero.org, www.nuclearresister.org, www.paxchristiusa.org, www.ucsusa.org and www.newamerica.net. This week, John will speak at St. Joseph’s in Indiana, and next week, help host the Pax Christi New Mexico Assembly with guest speaker Fr. Louie Vitale (see: www.paxchristinewmexico.org). John’s latest books, A Persistent Peace and Put Down the Sword, along with Patricia Normile’s John Dear On Peace are available from www.amazon.com. Next month, Orbis Books will publish his new collection, Daniel Berrigan: Essential Writings. For further information, see: www.johndear.org.
It is a shame that
It is a shame that Christianity has not accepted the nonviolence of Jesus for the 1700 or so years. Christianity had so much to offer governments if the teachings of Jesus had been at the core.
Christians can not be trusted, except for a small number of people who have taken the nonviolence of the Christ seriously.
Christianity has become a deceitful group of people. Christians can lie if something good can come out of it. If Christians can not be respected for telling the truth and acting accordingly then there is no hope for nuclear disarmament.
In the 1983, final draft of The Challenge of Peace the U.S. Catholic Bishops stated that nuclear deterence is an imperfect position and must be "taken off the table" as a practice. Since 1983 thing have gotten much worse in the area of non violence.
The U.S. has been using ordinance made of depleted Uranium that has a half life of the age of the Earth, roughly 4 and a half billion years. Radio active dU has been spread around war zones and injested by both the enemys, their and their families and our own soldiers who will die a long and tortuous death, and the department of defense continues to justify using it.
Fr. McSorley was correct when he stated that it is a sin to make a nuclear weapon. In order for deterence to work, someone has to be prepared to use it, and we know that the U.S. is prepared to use it.
Not only is a sin to deploy nuclear weapons, it is a sin to keep them. What is worse, abortion or nuclear holocaust?
I am a grand father and I hate to see the future of this world and what they may have to do to survive it.
I pray that God will enable mankind to wake up.
Peace!
"Christians can lie if
"Christians can lie if something good can come out of it."
- huh? are you serious? where is this taught?
That is not what I meant to
That is not what I meant to say. What I meant is that some Christians feel that they can lie if something good can come out of it. Then they can go to confession and confess it if they feel that it is a mortal sin.
I don't believe that lying can be justified.
Peace!
Ahh! Ok, I understand. Thanks
Ahh! Ok, I understand. Thanks for the clarification!
I too have often been very
I too have often been very discouraged with the sense that so many Christians feel that they can lie, if they think something good can come out of it. I remember, in the 1970's and 1980's when Christians were getting involved in politics, I actually thought that they would bring more honesty and, certainly, more awarness of respect for others to the discourse. Boy was I naive!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have witnessed, over and over again, the bearing of false witness against an oponent, the character assassinations, the disrespect and, even, hate that is often promoted towards anyone who has a different opinion. All of these things being done all too often by those who call themselves Christians. And where have our Christian leaders been while this has been going on? Usually anywhere from silent to actually encouraging these very unchristian attacks. All too often, if a lie or a character assassination was helping a cause that our leaders saw as worthy move along, they have kept silent. And now we have too many Christians coming up with all kinds of ways to disguise hate and a society that is horribable polarized within and without The Church.
We have to find a way to, not just live together, but also to worship together. And we need leaders who will help us do this. Yet, where are they?
Do you really want to carry
Do you really want to carry out your belief in peace? Sell your house or apartment and go live in the inner city and live with your doors unlocked. Get the people to disarm. When you accomplish this, please post the results on this Website.
Much like anti-knife laws in
Much like anti-knife laws in Britian, anti-nuclear weapon treaties will only bind those that wish to follow it.
How will this treaty be enforced? If, say, Iran or N. Korea gets nuclear capability and threatens to use it, what will be done to enforce it? Economic sanctions? (Which have worked soooooooo well so far...) Military force? If so, which countries are really willing to go to war against a nuclear armed nation?
I SERIOUSLY think most people haven't thought this through. Has the failure of pretty much every arms control agreement EVER not taught anyone anything?
I look forward to a future where nuclear weapons no longer exist, but that will be FAR in the future, if ever, and will require much more than simply signing a treaty.
"'The taproot of violence in our society today is our intent to use nuclear weapons,' the late Jesuit Fr. Richard McSorley wrote famously. "Once we have agreed to that, all other evil is minor by comparison. Until we squarely face the question of our consent to use nuclear weapons, any hope of large-scale improvement of public morality is doomed to failure.'"
- Holy Mother Teresa once said: "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between."
How about in those horrible
How about in those horrible cases in which the life of the mother is clearly and fatally in the balance, as that nine year old girl in Brazil?
What do you do?
Don't ask me! I am only asking, please, and have no answer!
Ask your Roman Catholic moral theologians like the Reverend Father Charles Curran.
Charles, I can only respond
Charles, I can only respond with the Church's teaching on this issue:
"It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being." ("Evangelium Vitae," No. 58)
Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
I think that's something you'd agree with, correct? Would Ghandi, Fr. John, St. Jagerstatter or Jesus ever say that it is ok to kill an innocent? I don't think so. And I would agree with them.
To get back to the topic at hand, I read my response again and would like to add some clarification: I am not saying that working to get countries to sign anti-nuclear weapon treaties is a bad thing. Far from it. My main point is to address a problem I see a lot here, and on other isses well. And that is, do not think that signing a treaty is going to fix anything. it never has, and it never will.
There is one thing we can ALL do that is PARAMOUNT to bringing peace to our world, though. It is simple, yet VERY hard.
We must become saints.
It's that simple. Think about it! Think about how much the world could change if there were 10 saint Dominics at once, or 10 Mother Teresas. That, friends, is what will change the world. Have we seen it before with 10 saints at the same time? I don't know. But just look at what 12 saints from the Middle East, preaching and doing the will of God, did to the world in the 1st century. :-)
Well, what if, and I am only
Well, what if, and I am only passing along the pressing question many have had for generations, what if our just standing by deliberately kills an innocent human being?
You ask me:
"Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
I think that's something you'd agree with, correct? Would Ghandi, Fr. John, St. Jagerstatter or Jesus ever say that it is ok to kill an innocent?"
And I ask you, what if coming to full term spells certain death for the innocent mother?
I propose proudly no answer, but defer to our Roman Catholic moral theologians such as the Reverend Father Charles Curran who is so much more stdied in these difficult moral questions.
"Well, what if, and I am only
"Well, what if, and I am only passing along the pressing question many have had for generations, what if our just standing by deliberately kills an innocent human being?"
- you mean like how you agreed in a previous topic that you would stand by and do nothing if you saw a man beating a woman to death? You mean like that?
You are basically asking 'what if by doing nothing the baby coming to term poses a threat to the mother? Is it ok to kill the child in that case?'
To answer this, let us see what the Church teaches:
"By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
(Pope John Paul II)
So much for seeking to kill the child.
From (On procured abortion - Clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) we have this:
"As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called "therapeutic" abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: 'If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy.' (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951).
Since Fr. Charles Curran lost his license to teach in 1986 and was a prime leader in the US against the moral teaching of the Church, I would not use him as a primary source.
So I ask you again, Charles: What would Jesus, St. Jagerstatter et al say in response to the question "is it ever ok to directly kill an innocent?" Would Fr. John Dear say this is the one form of violence he thinks is ok? I think not.
What would they say, Charles? You have no doubt studied them. How would they respond to being asked if it is ever ok to seek the death of an innocent?
Thank you for this very
Thank you for this very interesting citation which appears directly in line with the writings of our greatest North American Rman Catholic moral theologian, the Reverend Father Charles Curran, and kindly inform us in this present scholarly manner of any divergence which you discover.
I have read the recent and the original works on Saint Franz Jägerstätter, those of Gordon Zahn and of Edna Putz, and I fail to find any systematic research, reporting and discussion upon this topic, as with the other great spiritual leaders you cite. If you can indicate to me their treatises on this matter I would happily read them in order to answer your persistent questions, although perhaps you have done so.
To Pete the Greek: You end by
To Pete the Greek: You end by saying, "It's that simple."
This is news to me!
Henk, It IS that simple.
Henk,
It IS that simple. However, it is NOT easy.
I forgot who said it, but it went something like this: There is only one reason why, right now, I am not a saint. I do not totally want to be.
I think of that many times when I getting ready for confession. It is such a simple thing: ALWAYS say 'yes' to God. It is scandelous to think how little I do that.
But yes, think about how much REAL change could be brought to the world if we all, instead of running after our own wants, decided to try to become saints first above all...
The Reverend Fathret John
The Reverend Fathret John Dear SJ writes beautifully, prophetically, faithfully throughout this article, in particular in calling us to faithful action thusly:
"I hope we can urge our priests to preach about nuclear disarmament, educate our parish communities, hold prayer vigils, lobby and demonstrate for disarmament. Pax Christi offers resources and links for those who wish to get involved. Most of all, we need to beg the God of peace every day for the gift of a nuclear free world."
Meanwhile tragically, unbelievably we follow this link from a new NCR Today article:
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/richmond-diocese-rejected-pax-christi-ki...
Read please all of the Rev. Fr. Dear you can find, including his courageous memoir Persistent Peace.
The beginning of your title
The beginning of your title should be the new name of this rag: "Pushing Obama's Vision."
a nuclear free world in which
a nuclear free world in which all have health care and housing and economic equity?
a nice vision . . .
an eschatalogical vision of justice and of peace
a Roman Catholic vision
Let's PUSH!
If you think of this
If you think of this newspaper as "a rag", then why do you read it? Isn't there something more worthwhile you can do than to read a newspaper for which you have so much contempt?
Amen, Fr. Dear. Hope to see
Amen, Fr. Dear. Hope to see you in Kansas City for the Guilfoil Justice Days in February.
In April 2004 a prisoner was
In April 2004 a prisoner was released from an Israeli prison after serving a full term of 18 years, more than 10 of those years in solitary. He had been tricked and captured in Rome by Israeli agents and smuggled to Israel to stand trial. His crime? He was a former worker at Dimona, Israel's nuclear centre and he had given the world press incontrovertible information about Israel's nuclear weapons.
After release, the prisoner applied to leave Israel and was forbidden to do so. He is still, five and a half years later, confined to Israel, not even allowed to travel from Jerusalem the five miles to Bethlehem, not permitted to speak to "foreign" journalists. He is financially very strapped with endless court fees and the normal expense of living. His name is Mordechai - Mordechai Vanunu.
For many years past he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize; this year he asked not to be nominated. But he has done more for nuclear honesty than anyone else on the planet, and that includes Obama. Thanks to Vanunu we have proof of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Yet Obama is not intending to mention Israel's nukes in his fledgling attempts to abolish nuclear weapons!
Mordechai is loathed by many Israelis, regarded as a traitor, not only for his whistleblowing, but because he has become a Christian. He should be on Obama's "charity" list when he distributes the prize money. Meanwhile you can help through PayPal. http://www.vanunu.com/
I've never seen him appeal for money before and he must be really skint. A small group of us met him in 2005, and I asked then if he needed money. He replied "No," but later admitted he was short of cash and hadn't liked to say so.. What he really wants is his release from these restrictions and permission - the right- to leave Israel. Ask President Carter - he knows him.
I commend Mordechai Vanunu to your prayers and generosity. And God will reward you.
Father John Dear, SJ, and
Father John Dear, SJ, and Mordecai Vanunu, are indeed worthy of commendation
for their outspokenness in word and deed for the cause of world peace.
Both have been nominated for the distinction of being Nobel Peace Prize
Recipient. To date we do not know who nominated President Barack Obama for
the Prize. We do know he has won this year's honors, most probably based
upon his eloquence at the United Nations and the Security Council, as well as
his previous eloquence at other venues, on the topic of nuclear disarmament
beginning with the United States. But, as Dear and Vanunu, and even as the
President would humbly admit, actions speak louder than eloquent words.
We should all pray that the combined efforts of these leaders and many more
leaders as well as many more peace and justice groups and organizations will
change the course of history towards Peace and Harmony within the confines of
a more unified and effective United Nations framework.
The struggle between Good and Evil is at the root of Humanity's troubles.
Ever since sly Satan tricked Adam and Eve into eating of the forbidden fruit,
thus causing weaker humans to fall from The Creator's Good Graces, has the
struggle persisted. There is no humor in "The Devil made Me do It!" We must
face the reality that either WE choose to do God's Work here on Earth or WE
choose to do Satan's Work. There is NO gray area in this matter. Our Good
God has created US with 'Free Will' to do His bidding or to do Satan's bidding. Through Time immemorial Satan, in his demonaic competition with God
has succeeded in tricking/deceiving Humanity, God's Creation, into destroying
itself in so many nefarious ways, for his greater honor and glory. However,
God, The Creator of ALL things, including Satan, is always one step ahead of
His Creation, and He will have the Final Word. Through the merits of Our Lord
and Savior, Jesus Christ, the New Adam, God's Only-Begotten Son, We are
assured Eternal Salvation, thus depriving Satan of Our Immortal Souls. But,
the struggle persists for the survival of God's and Our Planet "Earth", the
penultimate Prize for Satan to claim. Hopefully, it is NOT too late for the
Human Race to Save Itself and Earth from Satan's "Pollution" and the "Confla-
gration" of Nuclear Disaster! May Heaven, ALL the Angels and Saints, assist US
in turning back the Tide of Darkness and Death before it is too late! WE are
a 'Resurection People' who believe in 'Life Eternal'! The Creator is an ALL
Loving, Merciful and Peaceful God, let US believe in and approve of His
Message, and reject the snares of Satan!
Too many pastors in my town
Too many pastors in my town are fully committed Republicans due to their rejection of abortion. They will not preach in support of Mr. Obama. They hardly grasp a non-fiction understanding of the Hiroshima/ Nagasaki holocaust.
It all has to come from the vox populi. We cannot allow the recent push toward authoritarianism among the clergy to brush aside the voice of us peasants' in preference for the magisterium.
Each of us must be ready to hold to our sense of conscience like Franz Jägerstätters.
The critical point here is
The critical point here is that Obama cites as the first step stopping the SPREAD of nuclear weapons. This is a very elitist approach which less privileged nations are naturally offended by.
It is saying that the elite nations will keep their nuclear weapons until the less privileged commit unconditionally not to having them. This is a "do what I say, not what I do" approach, and it is clearly intended to maintain the power situation.
A key to peace is sharing, rather than hoarding, power. Obama rejects this key. Rather, he says that the U.S. and other major wealthy countries are entitled to maintain hegemony. If the rest of the world concedes this power situation, then the elite nations may talk about giving up nuclear weapons.
Of course, this elitist view is unlikely to be accepted by all of the less privileged. The way Obama has stated it, then there will be no nuclear disarmament at all. So the so-called plan for nuclear disarmament is a fraud.
Pax Christi and all peace forces need to hammer this point home. We need to ask Obama to take the real first step towards peace, sharing power with the less privileged. And we need to keep pointing out to the public the fallacies in the Obama formula. To most people, he sounds like he is working for peace, but when you look closely at what he says (as well as what he does), you see that he is not at all.
I think it is no coincidence that Obama was awarded the Peace Prize by a committee of the Parliament of the nation that is the most affluent in the world by some measures. They share Obama's desire to keep the affluent nations in a strong power position. No group of peace advocates would have awarded Obama a peace prize.
The U.S.A. is the first, and
The U.S.A. is the first, and up to now, the only nation that has used the atomic bomb to kill thousands of innocent people... Please, don't ask for others to refrain from having nuclear weapons while you still have them!
And what can Obama do if he is "just like a sheep among a pack of wolves'?
Have you read the book of
Have you read the book of Revelation where God leaves the carcasses to lie and be eaten by birds? When God judges this planet it is going to be pretty violent, don't you think? Where do you think the souls of Gandhi, Buddah, and Mother Teresa are now? I sure would like some answers because I don't have much time on this earth left? Eternity is alot longer than this life ever is. What good is world peace if one doesn't live to enjoy it? One hundred, thirty thousand people a day perish on this planet without a catastrophe. Where are their souls???? What is Catholic teaching on this?????
Read Charity in Truth Work
Read Charity in Truth
Work for peace, and justice while you can, with all that you can
Give all that you have to the poor
in Love
Then there is not hope for
Then there is not hope for me. I have just enough money to pay bills and my time is spent caring for my mother.
"Give all that you have to
"Give all that you have to the poor"
If you believe that then why do you spend all your money on Amazon?
We are expected to be a
We are expected to be a Nation of Peace and yet we have weapons that need to be distroyed. We must set the exemple for the rest of the world.
Church Teaching: "It is true
Church Teaching:
"It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being." ("Evangelium Vitae," No. 58)
Lived Experience:
The story below is my understanding of what occurred in the situation of the pregnant nine-year-old in Brazil. (Please feel free to correct any factual errors. All I know about the situation is what I read in the papers.) Basically the story makes it clear that, rather than saying anything to comfort the family and risking that it might call into question the dogma that abortion is always the worst possible choice, the Church would prefer that the nine-year-old girl should die a painful and miserable death.
A nine-year-old Brazilian girl had an abortion after she was raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather. Had she carried the pregnancy to full term, the nine-year-old mother would have died. The local Archbishop, José Cardoso Sobrinho, quickly and very publicly announced that the girl's family and the doctors who performed the abortion were automatically excommunicated.
Monsignor Rino Fisichella, a Roman prelate close to Benedict, tried to soften the church's approach to the case by writing in the Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the girl "should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we were all on her side." Shortly afterwards, the Vatican announced that Sobrinho was stepping down. In a "clarification" published in a recent edition of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican unequivocally confirmed automatic excommunication for anyone involved in an abortion — even in such a situation as dire as the Brazilian case.
Church conservatives have steadfastly defended Archbishop Sobrinho, who rejected Monsignor Fisichella's criticism of insensitivity, and said he was simply stating Catholic doctrine in response to reporters' questions. The L'Osservatore Romano article implies that the Pope felt it necessary to publicly defend the Brazilian prelate's hard line and that Benedict ordered the publication of this clarification to straighten out any confusion created by Fisichella's previous L'Osservatore Romano article.
The brief document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith defends Sobrinho's "pastoral delicacy" [What pastoral delicacy?] and leaves no wiggle room on the standing of the family and doctors who carried out the abortion. "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life." "The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society." (The doctor and the girl's parents were excommunicated. The girl, being under age 18, was not subject to automatic excommunication.)
Some months after this messy issue had faded from view, why did Benedict return to a case that shows the church’s cold-heartedness? One senior Vatican official says the Pope was backing up the Brazilian bishop. "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith," the official says. "This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight."
Clearly the church would have preferred to see the nine-year-old girl die. Perhaps if they were sufficiently penitent for a decade or two, the archbishop (or his successor) might lift the excommunication. But it does make me wonder, why would anyone in this family want to be in communion with such a heartless church?
thank you for a remarkably
thank you for a remarkably thorough examination of this case, which has also been reported in the NCR
kind of like in the US Congress when the guys wanting bucks try to prove to the NRA who is more free with their gun "rights"
If Obama wants a nuclear-free
If Obama wants a nuclear-free world then Faithful Catholics must oppose it. Stay on message, people, it's about ABORTION-ABORTION-ABORTION. This talk about the economy, war, nuclear weapons & healthcare is a smokescreen to distract from ABORTION. What truly Faithful Catholic would be concerned with such matters when ABORTION remains legal? Our sole focus should be on recriminalizing ABORTION. Once we succeed at that, everyting else will fall into place.
Funny, Jesus said nothing
Funny, Jesus said nothing about abortion, but he did say much about poverty and loving enemies and forgiveness. Yes, abortion is a grave evil, but not just in clinics. Abortion happens by war, that kills the unborn, their mothers, their families and communities). Abuse of mothers kills the unborn. Poverty also kills the unborn, by malnutrition, violence, lack of health care, and desperation in general. Lets go against all abortion, not just the easy kind. Then we will be respected for being fair and consistent and loving all, the unborn and the born, not just politically self-righteous and partisan.
Post new comment