The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCurran: How bishops challenge abortion laws is 'flawed'
Oct. 29, 2010
A man holds an anti-abortion sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court during the 37th annual March for Life in Washington Jan. 22. (CNS photo/Molly Riley, Reuters)
The approach currently taken by the U.S. bishops to changing the law on abortion -- giving it a preeminence above all other issues that Catholic voters might consider -- is flawed on four counts, argued Fr. Charles Curran during a lecture Oct. 28 in the Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, where he teaches.
Curran, a controversial theologian who ran into trouble with church authorities earlier in his career for challenging church teaching on artificial birth control and other social issues, did not dispute church teaching about abortion in his talk. Instead he argued that various approaches to the law are acceptable under Catholic teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: See our earlier story: Fr. Charles Curran draws fire for SMU lecture-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curran said that uncertainty about when life begins, which has been consistently acknowledged in church teaching from ancient to modern times, as well as the bishops’ acceptance of legislative compromise on other issues and “the weakness of the intrinsic evil argument” undermines the bishops’ position that abortion should take precedence over every other issue in the public realm.
“In my judgment, the U.S. bishops claim too great a certitude for their position on abortion law and fail to recognize that their own position logically entails prudential judgment so that they cannot logically distinguish it from most of the other issues such as the death penalty, health care, nuclear deterrence, housing,” Curran said.
That judgment came about halfway through a lecture that first traced the narrowing of the bishops’ approach to abortion since the mid-1970s when, in the wake of Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, the bishops resisted a single issue approach to political involvement. A document on political responsibility before the 1976 election, wrote Curran, “insisted the bishops did not want to form a voting bloc or tell Catholics how to vote. Voters should examine the candidates on a full range of issues, and with a consideration for the candidates’ integrity, philosophy and performance. The document lists eight issues in alphabetical order, beginning with abortion, but does not give priority to any of these issues.”
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
In contrast, today the bishops “now clearly state abortion is the primary issue.” Their rationale for doing so, he said, rests on their conviction that other issues of public policy and law “involve prudential judgments,” but that abortion laws “deal with something that is intrinsically evil and does not involve prudential judgments. Catholics have certitude on the abortion law issue.”
However, Curran states, the bishops’ thesis is wrong for four reasons:
- “The speculative doubt about when human life begins;
- “the fact that possibility and feasibility are necessary aspects involved in discussions about abortion law;
- “the understanding and role of civil law;
- “and the weakness of the intrinsic evil argument.”
Catholic tradition, from Thomas Aquinas to today, “recognizes speculative doubt about when the soul is infused or when the human person comes into existence,” said Curran. Aquinas is often cited as someone who, while opposing abortion, “held for delayed animation.” Critics often argue that Aquinas’s thinking on the matter suffered from the faulty biology of the day.
“But an opposing view sees Aquinas’s position of delayed animation as based on his philosophical understanding of hylomorphism, which sees matter and form as the constitutive causes of a being. The matter has to be suitable and capable of receiving the form.” Curran argues that “from the beginning, the matter of what we now call the fetus is not apt or suitable for receiving the human soul. Some growth and development are necessary before the human soul can be infused.”
Doubt about exactly when infusion of “the spiritual soul” occurs is acknowledged, he said, in several modern Vatican and papal documents, including the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That document notes “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” Still, said Curran, while recognizing the philosophical problem, the document calls for erring on the side of caution. It states that it is sufficient “that the presence of the soul is probable because one cannot take the risk of killing a human person.”
Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae “also recognized the speculative doubt. However, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of an attack aimed at killing the embryo,” said Curran.
So the contention by bishops today that “from the moment of conception, each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person,” said Curran, “is accurate but not totally forthcoming.
“The most accurate way to state the Catholic moral teaching is that direct abortion even of a fertilized ovum is always wrong, but you cannot say it is murder. There is doubt about the reality of the early embryo,” said Curran.
Consequently, the teaching o n the morality of abortion “is not as certain” as the church’s teaching on such other issues as murder, torture or adultery, he said. “In making the moral case against abortion, there is need for a further argument based on the principle that in doubt one must give the benefit of the doubt to the existence of a truly human being,” said Curran.
Feasibility and possibility
One way of explaining the role of “feasibility and possibility” in lawmaking is to understand that politicians in the United States, “from the president on down have to recognize this reality and often have to be willing to settle for half a loaf rather than none.”
The bishops have recognized such a political contingency in the past, argues Curran, citing earlier documents where bishops call for “protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible” and in supporting legislative efforts in the past that would have provided a less-than-perfect solution.
Measuring the feasibility and possibility of passing a law “is without doubt a prudential judgment, and as the bishops themselves have recognized, Catholics can and do differ over such prudential judgments. There is no certitude or even agreement about where to draw the line about what is feasible and possible.”
 The Friends of NCR 2011 Annual Appeal is underway. Please support us so that we may continue to provide the best independent Catholic news through informed reporting, analysis and commentary. |
The Catholic tradition approaches the role and function of civil law in two ways, said Curran: through natural law, an approach heavily influenced by Aquinas, and through the religious freedom approach developed in the documents of Vatican II.
Curran said in the abortion issue, he prefers the religious freedom approach and its three criteria for “determining the proper intervention of coercive law” -- justice, public peace and public morality.
Such an approach, said Curran, “can be used to accept the present legal situation of abortion in this country or could also justify working to change the existing law.”
“Even those who hold that abortion involves the killing of a human being could argue that there is no consensus on the issue in our society today. As a result one could give the benefit of the doubt to the freedom of the woman. The prudential recognition that it is impossible to change the present law today makes the argument for accepting the present law on the basis of the religious freedom approach even more cogent.”
On the other hand, argues Curran, the same religious freedom approach can be used to change existing law based on the justice component, the function of which “is to protect basic human rights including the right to life.”
No claim of certitude
“For our present purposes, the fact that the religious freedom approach could justify either position regarding abortion law means that in light of the Catholic understanding, neither the bishops nor anyone else can claim certitude as to how Catholics should decide about abortion legislation,” he said.
In the current context of U.S. politics, Curran said, while the natural law approach would maintain that the pro-choice position goes against natural law teaching condemning abortion, the religious freedom approach “recognizes the freedom and choice of the individual. Precisely in the area of religious liberty and the discussions in Roman Catholic theology in the centuries preceding Vatican II, the opposition to religious freedom arose because it meant protecting, promoting and accepting false religions.” Vatican II changed that outlook, he said, recognizing a requirement to respect the freedom of the person to choose in the matter of religion. In the case of abortion, said Curran, “one is not supporting a false religion, but rather the freedom of the person to choose.”
Finally, argued Curran, the use of the term intrinsic moral evil as a rationale for giving abortion preeminence among all other political issues is a faulty argument.
“The primary problem is that intrinsic evil is a moral term and not a legal term. The fact that something is an intrinsic moral evil has nothing to do with law or legality. Aquinas himself following Augustine, was willing to accept no law against prostitution, which according to Catholic teaching is a morally intrinsic evil.”
Today, he said, many U.S. states do not have criminal laws against adultery, even though “Catholic teaching insists that adultery is an intrinsic moral evil.”
No Catholic bishops, he said, have campaigned for anti-adultery laws. Because something is intrinsically evil according to Catholic teaching “does not mean there should always be a law against it,” he said.
The weakness of the argument based on intrinsic evil, said Curran, “once again undermines the position of the bishops wanting to see the public policy position on abortion as differing from public policies on most other issues.
[Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address is troberts@ncronline.org.]
Curran’s comparing Adultery
Curran’s comparing Adultery which is grave sin to abortion is a mistake. Adultery unlike abortion it does not cause the death of a baby!! Abortion is not new the church opposed during the Roman Empire. Many things the Bishops have done I do agree with, but they are right on Abortion
Father Curran did NOT compare
Father Curran did NOT compare adultery to abortion. He cited adultery as one immoral action (from a Catholic point of view) that is not prohibited by civil law even though it harms others. Of course, here you use the wrong term. A baby is not a fetus or a four-cell egg. So, there are degrees of things properly covered by civil law and properly not covered by civil law even in a Catholic understanding of the role of law.
Henry your argument is
Henry your argument is interesting but please remember that civil law is fluid and changing because whether you like it or not it is a compendium of mans opinion put into "law". Adultery immoral from a Catholic point of view? Please tell me from whose viewpoint Adultery is not immoral? The Civil Law you cite once held Adultery as a crime , ever hear of Beach of Promise? Guess where the genesis of that law came from! As for Curran he should gratefully accept a donation from Planned Parenthood for making arguments that barely hold up in a University cafeteria.
From contemporary sex
From contemporary sex studies, it seems there are many people who don't think adultery is immoral. Yes, law is fluid. Even church law changes, i.e. usury. Curran spoke to a highly educated audience, many people present held graduate degrees, and your put down doesn't work even anonymously.
"Breach of Promise" was once
"Breach of Promise" was once grounds for a lawsuit against a person for failure to carry out a promised marriage. It had nothing to do with adultery in civil or criminal law.
Sorry, adultery leads
Sorry, adultery leads directly to many abortions.
Your response shows a defect
Your response shows a defect in reading. You argue where there is no argument. Curran's point is the use of "intrinsic", and that it is generally abused. So, if your point is that abortion is a much more grave sin than adultery; I doubt that Curran would argue. He addresses the legality of "intrinsic" improperly inserted for morality...so that an intrinsic evil is used by the Church in both cases. In fact the Church is all over the place with 'intrinsic evil' e.g. masturbation, artificial birth control, IVF,stem cell research, abortion. You get the drift, so who is doing the equating. "Adultery unlike abortion it does not cause the death of a baby"; your words, and the same as putting words into someones mouth which were never spoken or intended. Another favorite of the Church is "objectively disordered".
You are absolutely spot on.
You are absolutely spot on. Adultery has been intrinsically sinful even before Moses came down off of Mt Sinai. Abortion? Well, it has been defined all over the place in the 4,000 or so years of both Judaism and Christianity. Then along came Humanae Vitae that told us that it is OK to INTEND to have intercourse without conceiving as long as you tried to time it as opposed to using a drug. Intent to "sin" suddenly went out the window in the eyes of the Vatican. It is that disconnect that the Sensus Fidelium finds to be hypocritical and ludicrous.
Then our Church goes even further and tells my brother and his wife that the sterilisation of their profoundly retarded Downs daughter who can not even speak a sentence is a mortal sin on their part! Then our Church goes to the nth degree (that's a math term for potential infinity for you non mathmeticians) and declares that a mother of 4 who procures an abortion of her non viable 11 week fetus in order to save her own life so that she can mother her 4 other children with her husband is excommunicated along with the nun and other Catholics on the hospital ethics committee and the Catholic medical personnel who participated in the therapeutic abortion to save her life! Then the American bishops castigate any politician and their electorate who do not support the Hyde Amendment, even when it allows the funding of abortion for rape, incest, and THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. Go figure!
If adultery has been
If adultery has been intrinsically evil since the time before Moses, then why was Onan permitted *two* wives?
The truth is that the definition of what is sinful HAS changed, even within the "unchangeable" church. No one in the Catholic hierarchy would argue today that a many should be permitted multiple wives because it was in the Old Testament.
It is not reasonable to argue that a woman who has an abortion to save her own life is "intrinsically evil." We don't argue that a soldier who shoots the enemy in self-defense is "intrinsically evil." No, it's not an innocent baby's fault that it was conceived, but that does not change the fact that a baby's very existence is sometimes life-threatening for the mother.
So what's the solution? Force a woman to give birth and say, "Whatever happens must be God's will"? That is barbaric and unreasonable.
I think the problem(abuse)
I think the problem(abuse) lies in the word "intrinsic". The Church uses it indiscrimately, at least, it seems. At times the Church seems to manufacture sins, where there was no sin e.g. historically: eating meet on Friday; presently: obligation to attend Sunday mass...and myriad others etc.
When "intrinsic" is used there can be no dialogue within the Church. Such a word rules out theologians discussing the issue at hand. Another example is the present day warfare of the Church against the ordination of women, citing this as an evil equivalent to priests molesting children, and if that is not bad enough using puerile and too foolish justifications that no one of any learning would find acceptable.
rape huh? Do you believe in
rape huh? Do you believe in God? Are you Catholic? If you answer YES to both, you would know the devil exists and he pushes us to sin, or to commit such a horrendous act as a rape. Rapes are the work of Satan, through us. Consider this: Can satan create a life? NO. Only God can. A life or anything can only come to being if God WILLS IT. My point is: Rape is diabolic, but the baby caused from that rape IS NOT. God was there! Out of such a horrible act came such a great good, which is a God-given child....Would you say God did "wrong" then, by Willing a child into existence??? Out of the horror of the cross came such a great good, which is our salvation...God was "wrong" again??? Are you God? If my argument didn't hold what would make yours better? You are just a nobody, just like me, and I don't mean it as an insult, please don't misunderstand me. You and I are both equal, but the only certain thing we share is that WE ARE NOT GOD.
Also abortions by rape account for less than half percent, so it is a weak argument to begin with from the pro-abort camp, trying to force this "reason" into false epidemical proportions. That is a fact. Please consider your position, in all angles: in a justice angle, a merciful one, a Catholic one, and beyond all, a low one because you are not God, you are creature.
Anonymous: You don't believe
Anonymous:
You don't believe we have free will?
With the exorcism promoting conference in Baltimore this weekend, I see where we are going.
If someone in favor with the church (like a man who has become a priest) does a wrong, it is the work of the devil.
A new elitism....or is it just a new version of clericalism.
Would B16 put free will in jepordy in order to avoid finding fault by his priests? Maybe.
Then again, this Pope does not seem that convinced of freedom of conscience- Does the devil control our conscience decisions?
Avoiding looking at the root causes of systemic problems in the Catholic Church is leading to world of unreality-
exorcisms, devils being responsible for rapes. Not sane folks.
No one wants abortion! But
No one wants abortion! But we should work to end it instead of saying you can only vote for someone who opposes it. It gives to much power to ONE issue. I think abortion is a great tragedy, but it is VERY complicated and saying nothing else matters is wrong. Most of the people the Bishop's want us to vote for do not support any rights for the child once they are born... and I really think many of them use the issue to get votes.
Abortion isn't a complicated
Abortion isn't a complicated issue. It's no more complicated than slavery or the Holocaust. And it is *the* defining humanitarian issue of our day. If we refuse to protect the weakest among us because they are unwanted by the strongest, then how can we claim we value life? Killing and devaluing humans simply because of physical characteristics or location is wrong. And these unborn humans can be nothing other than human. The fact remains that biologically, we know today that a human being with distinct DNA is created at conception. Aquinas had no way of knowing this. We needn't wax philosophical as to "when life begins" unless we're trying to avoid basic biology to further the pro-abortion agenda.
When the right to life for innocents is denied, truly, nothing else matters. You cannot have liberty and justice for all if you deny the most helpless and innocent their right to live.
Saying "most of the people the Bishops want us to vote for do not support any rights for the child once they are born" is ridiculous. Supporting a child's right to live BEFORE he is born is also supporting his right to life AFTER he is born. We do not refuse to help those in need once they have left the birth canal. But for you to say so indicates to me that you are using that excuse to ignore the human rights issue of abortion. Turn a blind eye if you will, but at least be straightforward about it and don't shrug your responsibility to "rescue those who are perishing" by claiming politicians are the ones who are corrupt.
This whole debate is totally
This whole debate is totally ridiculous.
First “Curran said that uncertainty about when life begins” makes no sense.
Both the ovum and the sperm are alive, and so is the oocyte after fertilization. Google it. After fertilization, the oocyte is totipotential, has the architectural potential to become a full unique person. Plus, most abortions are preformed on average at 8 to 9 weeks. At that time a baby has limbs, a nervous system, beings to move, has a heart that beats, etc… The baby has a DNA distinct from the parents, as well as a distinct immune system. Commandment #1 of the "pro-abortion dogma" is that their “adult right to sexual freedom” is more important than life of a helpless child that needs protection. They are trying to brainwash with their self serving “belief”, that a live baby in the womb is “not a person”. Despite all the evidence that is in front of their eyes. A 7 year old would say, “hey that is a baby”. Yes, a baby that is alive (not a rock), a human (not a fly), distinct from the parents. A distinct live human that has the full potential of any one of us, perhaps better. But these retrograde, self-serving, adult proponents of abortion as trying to force down the world’s throat their medieval concepts that a baby becomes a “person”, like by magic, only once outside the womb. So I guess Chinese gendercide of 100's of thousands of girls is ok, according to Fr Curran and the “enlightened” NCR commentators? Come on, things have changed since the 60’s. We have ultrasound. Your selfish world view, that you are trying to impose, that one’s “freedom of sexual expression” trump’s the life of a child, just to make money out of that misery, is a sham that people are no longer are buying.
@AT You need to reflect on
@AT
You need to reflect on and understand things better. You wrote: " After fertilization, the oocyte is totipotential, has the architectural potential to become a full unique person. Plus, most abortions are preformed on average at 8 to 9 weeks. At that time a baby has limbs, a nervous system, beings to move, has a heart that beats, etc… "
1. "architectural potential": yes, indeed, the oocyte has the "potential", in other words, but is not yet a "full unique person". Therefore, many believe and will argue that aborting this oocyte is not morally wrong.
2. "abortions are performed on average at 8 or 9 weeks. At that time a baby has...". Earth to AT. It is NOT a baby at this point. It is an EMBRYO.
If you are going to spout science and facts, at least know what you write first.
barefootgrl ...hum, funny how
barefootgrl
...hum, funny how in the Mayo Clinic pre-natal care site for expecting mothers, they say things like "Week 7: Baby's head develops"
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2
But, hey, its just the Mayo Clinic.
You know, barefootgrl, George Orwell described what you are trying to do.
Its called "double speak": you give new definitions to weaken existing ones. Classic cult manipulation. What you are doing is trying to de-humanize babies. So when is a baby a baby according to your "dogma"(or "a person", your definition of "soul")? I guess limbs, head etc.. do not count. Why are you discriminating against a live human, just because that live human is so small? Because he/she does not fit what your idea? Science has moved along since the '60's, you know. Why the discrimination? Because its' easy? Because you make money out of this? Why? Stigmatization because of pregnancy out of wed lock is a thing of the past. Adoption is as an option.
Some more arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA
AT A "baby" is a baby when it
AT
A "baby" is a baby when it arrives outside the woman's body. Before that it is a fetus. A baby is not an adolescent and an adolescent is not an adult. Zygote - embryo - fetus - infant - child - adolescent - adult.
In other words, all are human but at differing places on the developmental spectrum of life. Yes, AT, an embryo is a life but whether or not that life has the same "rights" as infants, children, etc is an on-going debate. Only absolutists and religious loonies claim to know for sure, and they want everyone else to adhere to their decision. I'll make the decision what to do with my body and who or what takes priority (my body or the embryo/fetus' ).
"Science has moved along since the '60s, you know". Yes, AT, no kidding. So why the hostility? The developmental process from when the sperm and ovum meet to the death of an elderly adult is much more nuanced and complex than we ever thought. You are projecting your stereotypes of pro-choice people onto me. You've never met me. I don't make money off of abortions, I don't have anything to do with them, I've never had one myself. However, if I found myself pregnant I'm sure glad I have options to mull over. Psssst....it wouldn't be any of your business what decision I made.
Fr. Curran is accurate in his
Fr. Curran is accurate in his thinking. Abortion is not murder unequivocably, no telling when the human soul is present. I think the fetus is human once there is a heart beat.
Perhaps thanks to Dallas
Perhaps thanks to Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell, who suddenly splattered the news with condemnations the day before Father Curran's talk, there was a packed ballroom audience to hear the lecture. It was noteworthy, in defiance of the bishop, that the crowd included many staffers, students and faculty from the SMU Catholic community who might not have attended otherwise. Some Catholic clergy in Dallas also attended. (The bishop's office had sent out flyers warning everyone.)
The standing ovation for Curran, after his remarkablly brilliant historical analysis and contemporary critique of the bishops' role in the politics of abortion, gave evidence that most in the audience felt Catholic intellectual thought and academic freedom was threaten by the local bishop's kneejerk reaction and they were sending him a message.
So, it is nice to have a great theologian in Dallas, a university where he could speak freely and a dumb local bishop to help make it all successful.
Uhm, looking at the website
Uhm, looking at the website for the Diocese of Fort Worth it notes Kevin Vann as the Bishop and on the website for the Diocese of Dallas it says that Kevin Farrell is the Bishop of Dallas. The webmasters must be mistaken as well.
Demogogues often get
Demogogues often get enthusiastic crowds.
I have a 37-year-old daughter
I have a 37-year-old daughter who has Down's Syndrome. When she was 16, she was repeatedly raped and impregnated by a trusted family friend. The baby died in vitro and my daughter was hemorrhaging so profusely her life was in danger and she had to have an emergency abortion. Without it, two lives would have been lost instead of one. Am I ex-communicated because I consented to the procedure? What about the Catholic physician? The priest who held my hand throughout the ordeal? My daughter?
Let's get real, Bishops!
If the baby was already dead,
If the baby was already dead, then the abortion is therapeutic and not elective and is therefore not prohibited.
I don't think the procedure
I don't think the procedure your daughter had would be considered an abortion since the baby was already dead. The opposition to abortion stems from the belief that a human person is being killed via the procedure. Your daughter's baby was dead, so no one was killed.
I have a niece with profound
I have a niece with profound Down's Syndrome who is 6 years old. She can not yet talk. According to our bishops, it is a mortal sin to sterilise her. Given the declining health of her parents, there is a high likelihood she will eventually be a ward of the state or have caretakers hired to care for her when a custodial family member is away. Thus are the fruits of Humanae Vitae.
Let's go back to the Phoenix abortion fiasco. A mother of 4 was required to lay in bed and die with her non viable fetus or be excommunicated along with Catholics on the Ethics Committee and the Medical Staff that performed her therapeutic abortion that allowed her to go home to her husband and 4 other children 1 week later. Despite the fact that even JP2 had acknowledged some doubts exist about the time of ensoulment. Yet, the bishops have supported the Hyde Amendment from day one even though it allows federal funds to pay for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Even though, as we learned in Phoenix, the Church supposedly will not even approve of an abortion to save the life of the mother. That is a prime example of compromise in order to get "half of the loaf" as Fr. Curran said. But they will not compromise when a devout Catholic mother's life is at stake. And the bishops continue to wonder why more and more Catholics ignore their directions on how to vote in a given election.
Getting real? You stated the
Getting real? You stated the baby died in vitro - the procedure was not aborting a living fetus, but a dead fetus - not the same thing. I am very sorry that your daughter suffered this abuse - I hope the perpetrator was criminally convicted for his vile acts against her.
IF the baby died in the womb
IF the baby died in the womb - an abortion was not done - only a procedure to remove the already dead baby's body from the mother's womb. Not to have done so would have caused the death of the mother as you indicated. There was NO abortion in that case.
The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church recognizes that the mother has a right to life, too, and surgical procedures initiated to save her life are justified, even though this might bring about the death of the fetus. This is called the "double-effect" principle. As such, it differs from abortion, which is a deliberate destruction of the life of the fetus when there is no danger to the life of the mother.
I don't think Bishop Thomas
I don't think Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix agrees with that. He punished the nun who helped a gravely ill woman get an abortion. Bishop Olmstead did not use one life over another. He chooses death for all.
If the baby had already died,
If the baby had already died, in vitro, it was not an abortion.
I hate to nitpick, but unless
I hate to nitpick, but unless the baby was conceived in a test tube, it did not die "in vitro" but "in utero".
That said, I agree with those who say that the abortion issue seems to supercede everything else: No health care for a lot of the already-living children and adults just to make sure that funds don't go towards a very small number of abortions. Where is the sense of proportion?
Let's get it real
Let's get it real Anonymous!
Somehow I feel compelled to throw the BS flag on this one as a fabrication to further the heterotoxic cause. Few problems with the story:
1. For a baby to die "in vitro" means a child died in a petri dish.....that won't hold water in this forum because most posters don't believe you have a baby yet (but I do). I think the phrase you're looking for is "in utero".
2. If the baby died in utero due to natural causes, the daughter didn't need an emergency abortion. The likely uterine curettage and hemorrhage repair did not terminate the baby's life if it was already dead. Accordingly, it was the hemorrhage repair that prevented two lives from being lost and not an abortion.
If the two conditions above actually occurred, the mother did not consent to a procedure that resulted in prenatal infantacide and did not excommunicate herself (although it appears she takes pride in thinking so). Neither did any of the other actors in this drama.
So sorry Anonymous, no heterotoxic martyrdom for you today.
Wow, Sirach, take a step
Wow, Sirach, take a step back.
What I heard was the grandmother misunderstanding an aspect of medical ethics. It seemed to cause her both great spiritual pain and also anger.
The stress patients and their familiy members go through at a time like this could easily mean that the attending priest attempted to educate, but the grandmother was incapable of "hearing" at the time. My take anyway.
But compassion is in order here. It seemed to me that the grandmother was hurting because she thought the church judged what had happened as an abortion. If that is correct it would be well for her to have a talk with her priest to clear things up (there are other things involved) and be relieved of the guilt.
[I suspect most readers here understood that she meant "in utero" - but did not want to rub her nose in it. However this is another indication that she could be helped by education in the matter.]
This is why abortion will
This is why abortion will never be banned in the first trimester - as to do so by giving children full civil rights must then empower the government to investigate every miscarriage to make sure it was not a prohibited abortion - especially if the local prosecutor wants to look pro-life and go after abortionists or doctors who contribute to an opponent. Such investigations would shock the conscience - however prohibiting them results in an abortion law with no teeth - hence there will likely be no such law extending to the first trimester.
It is up to the proponents to try to draft one, by the way. It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to solve the logical quandry involved. Indeed, until there is a draft bill submitted to deal with this issue, there is no cause to condemn Catholic pro-choice politicians for their views.
Submit a bill that deals with the details and then you can tell me how to vote. Until then, your activism on the issue is merely pandering.
When my father passed away in
When my father passed away in 1996, each grandchild was - according to his last will and testament - bequeathed a certain sum of money. According to New Jersey law at the time, this included all grandchildren "in utero" who had the same legal rights to inheritance as those already born. No one questioned "how long" the baby was "in utero" to exercise his or her right to inheritance. That section of the law seems to have no problem with the "beginning of life" issues we are all so busy either defending or discrediting.
We are not talking
We are not talking inheritance law. Your father could have legally bequeathed money to all your family pets as well. We are talking criminal law in which people could face imprisonment. Big difference.
If I understand you correctly
If I understand you correctly you are saying the baby died in utero, while still in the womb. In that case you did not consent to an abortion but to the removal of the deceased baby from its mother's womb. There would be no moral problem there; no excommunication or any other penalty for yourself, the doctor, the priest or anyone else involved. ANONYMOUS
Outside of your very apparent
Outside of your very apparent dislike for the Catholic faith, your comments are confusing, Anonymous. Your description of the situation sounds like a doctor removed an already dead baby and stopped your daughter's bleeding. No one was going against Church teaching. What you describe was not an abortion. By the way, the "trusted family friend" was the guilty party in this case, not your handicapped daughter and certainly not the baby. Isn't it strange how the guiltless ones are the ones who die or are put in danger of death?
yes on all counts.
yes on all counts.
A priest was there when the
A priest was there when the baby was killed? Not only did he remove himself from the Christ and the Church but would not be illicitly performing sacraments and be in danger in many places of invalidly celebrating sacraments. I hope he went to confession right away.
Mind telling us how you think
Mind telling us how you think you can kill a baby that is already dead?
You will not and should not
You will not and should not be excommunicated. Here's why:
1. You say that baby died in vitro, and that subsequent hemorrhaging was the reason for the abortion. Well, if the baby is already dead, then its not an abortion, its an emergency delivery. Noone got killed.
2. If the doctor says that the operation is going to save the woman's life, and doesn't actively end the baby's life, then its not an abortion. Sometimes an operation results in the death of a baby. That happens. It's only an abortion when you in to kill the baby. When you have these situations where the mom is going to die, then you ahead with the operation, because it is meant to save a life. Killing the baby doesn't help the mom - removal does though. Sometimes the baby can't be saved too, but the point isn't to kill, but to save. It's called principle of double effect - sometimes good things have bad consequences. You try to help as best you can, and trust God to handle the rest. I think you did the right thing, and I hope that no one bothers you about it anymore. Thanks to you, the doctors got to take a situation where two people were dying and save one. God bless you.
Maybe you should review this
Maybe you should review this article from NCR 5/18/10:
http://ncronline.org/news/justice/nun-excommunicated-allowing-abortion
Bishop Olmstead's ruling was endorsed by the American bishops at their summer meeting. This is the face of the mysoginistic, neanderthal bishopry we have been granted by JP2 and B16.
Too, the church hierarchy,
Too, the church hierarchy, from pope on down, have morphed their position on abortion from what happens in the womb to what happens between two cells in a petri dish, so that the whole of the Catholic Church structure is now against advances in care for women and advances in medical treatment for a whole array of diseases afflicting humanity. Then, you can throw in "abornormality" of homosexualties and the millions dying in Africa from AIDS because the church opposed distribution of condoms.
Well, Cardinal Burke advocating in Rome would apparently vote for an Adolph Hitler-type political candidate if he said he was against abortion and gay marriage. Let us never forget that the American bishops abandoned the health needs of millions of Catholics (and others) in their politics of abortion in Washington DC.
God save us from this dark age of the Catholic Church!
Important,
Important, helpful............thanks again Charlie.
Tom Roberts --- thanks for
Tom Roberts --- thanks for this reporting of Curran's talk. He's probably correct on all points. He doesn't examine motives--what are the bishop's motives for drawing a line in the sand, for the "we will not bend on this issue" claim.
One motive could be that they see they've bent on so many issues when it comes to the ordinary lives of ordinary people. They don't condemn Catholic politicians who support offensives wars, who support the death penalty, who turn their backs on economic just for all people, politicians who would break up families in deportation actions, who would eschew the long tradition of Catholic Social Action. These are all issues where they've bent so what's left--intrinsically evil abortion. Our bishops have made the decision--we have to stand for something--so they make abortion the be-all and end-all of two thousand years of Catholic moral teaching. Dorothy Day said this about our bishops in a letter to Gordon Zahn---"As a convert, I never expected much from the bishops. In all history popes and bishops and father abbots seem to have been blind and power-loving and greedy. I never expected leadership from them. It is the saints that keep appearing all through history who keep thing going. The Gospel is hard. Loving your enemies, and the worst are of our own household, is hard." ("Catholic Worker" Oct-Nov,2010
I'm sure that quote from
I'm sure that quote from Dorothy Day is pasted to the front of her folder in some office in the Vatican, which would explain why her cause for saint hood has gone nowhere fast. That, and the fact that she was not a habited nun.
Thanks Tom for your thoughts.
Thanks Tom for your thoughts. I too have done much wondering on motives having worked for the church for 20 some years and have gotten to know church politics to some extent. My thoughts on motives regarding this issue is the church is hemorrhaging money due to scandal and people leaving. The people who are staying are overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. They are into the pre-Vatican II church, prefer Eucharist, rosaries and miracles to social justice, etc. I also suspect IF you compared the total wealth of Catholic Republicans to Catholic Democrats the Republicans would beat out the Dems hands down. If your church needs an infusion of money who better to side with than the Republicans. The bishops are in lock step with the NRLC which is nothing more than a Republican PAC. OUr leaders are practical. They have to pay the bills. Too bad they put that above the gospel. They certainly could learn from the saints.
And that of course explains
And that of course explains why the Bishops toe the Republican line on immigration, oh wait....
Thank you Fr. Curran. Now if
Thank you Fr. Curran.
Now if only the bishops and the radical righties would listen to you, perhaps we would come a long way in severely limiting the number of abortions in this country.
The hysterical antics of the bishops and the people on the street carrying pictures of fetuses accomplish nothing but arousing the anger of people who feel that they are being judged by a bunch of self-righteous morons.
It also shows how stupid these protesters can be.
If only some bishops would get together and endorse Curran's stance... that would be a sign of hope as well as a step in the right direction in bringing sanity and moral clarity to this issue. Unfortunately, the chance that any of these "yes" men to the pope would ever do that is quite remote. We will have more choas in the steets, supported by these bishops, and abortions will go on un-abated. How sad.
Curran's position and his
Curran's position and his rationalization, while silent on the subject itself, evokes the continued opposition between Jesus and the pharisees. More significantly it suggests that the "Jesus" approach to "being in the world" be restored within the church.
While speculative theologians, the "scientists" of the church, question, research, speculate, promulgate their positions and "debate" among themselves and inform the "masses" through teaching,the practical application of this learning must return to the MODE of Jesus.
The imposition of the "science" by fiat, where in fact legitimate "wiggle room" (conscience and good-will, in this case)exists is a tyranny of conclusion. It inevitably rejects compassion as "emotionalism"; quest-ioning asilligitimate dissent and disagreement as heresy. It redefines conscience as obedience; intelligence as irrelevant, removing the "human" from humanity.
The true role of the "Bishop", the shepherd, the bridge, the "fullness of the priesthood" is to BE the Christ;to inculcate compassion;instill learning;encourage reflection and prayer;demonstrate the overriding, unqualified love of God as incarnate in and demonstrated by Christ. Bishops as Chief Executive Officer, determiners of issues, and dictators of positions and excluders of conscience and dissent are worse than contemporary pharisees.
Yes dennism, The true
Yes dennism,
The true composition of the magisterium is tripartite: 1) the voice of the people, 2) the voices of the theologians and 3) the voice of the Bishops. Until the bishops recognize this, there is no magisterial teaching that can be called the moral teachings of the Church. The voice of the Bishops can not be authoritarian, when in fact they are not even authoritative. True Magisterial teaching must take into consideration the practical and holy aspects of living in a married and non married laity. It must take into consideration what the theologians are finding to be more likely the voice of the Holy Spirit. Finally it is only the Bishops job to correlate these two and help to form an ever changing catechesis. This catechesis has changed very much in the past---just compare the catechisms of the past 500 year to the current one. The people of God have come to realize that catechesis is a standard that current Bishops are promoting. In no way does this equate to a sum of magisterial teaching. The dogmatism of the Episcopacy is not serving to save souls and increase spirituality, it is serving as a divisive instrument in society that promotes fear, and hate instead of community and love. The Bishops have gone way overboard as a group and they are rightfully loosing the respect of more and more of God's people.
May the Bishops attempt to lead more shepardly and peaceful lives as they have become the agents for divisiveness not community.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Cite for me authentic - i.e.
Cite for me authentic - i.e. binding teaching that is not speculative - Catholic teaching that the Pope, or bishops in Communion with the Pope have to concede to theologians or the lay faithful. You won't find it.
Undoubtedly you will not
Undoubtedly you will not regard it as "binding" teaching, but you might consider this, from De Ecclesia #12, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, officially adopted by the world's Catholic Bishops and by Pope Paul VI:
“The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy
One (cf. Jn. 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a
supernatural sense of the faith which characterizes the People as a
whole, it manifests this unerring quality when, ‘from the bishops down
to the least member of the laity,’ it shows universal agreement in
matters of faith and morals.”
I think history belies the claim that the body of the faithful cannot err, at least on occasion. But the teaching does insist that what "the People as a whole" believe about faith and morals must be taken into account and may not be ignored. It raises the possibility that when the bishops and the faithful are not unanimous on a given issue, the Spirit may not be inspiring each group to the same degree. So no, the bishops and the pope do not have to concede to theologians or the lay faithful. But they have no right to question their loyalty to the Risen Lord nor to excommunicate them for being unorthodox--merely because the faithful disagree with them.
For more on this you might check out my blog at http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com. It also has a link to my doctoral dissertation, which was largely devoted to this topic.
Any wonder why the local
Any wonder why the local bishop didn't want people to hear Fr. Curran? His clear and convincing explanation of the issue is in stark contrast to the demagogic political rants of the US Bishops.
In the political realm the most accurate theological statement uttered in the 2008 Presidential campaign was Senator Obama's answer to Rick Warren's question about when human life begins: "It's above my pay grade" Of course, it's above everyone's pay grade: Popes, Presidents, politicians, pastors, preachers, pundits.
'Trouble?" You say that
'Trouble?" You say that Curran got into "trouble" with Church authorities?
I would describe being "prohibited from teaching theology in a Catholic institution" a lot more than trouble. Sounds like he was out on the skinny branches overlooking the abyss of heresy.
We know that the National Catholic Reporter is NOT a Catholic institution so it is OK for you to publish him.
But why would I want to read it?
Dear Ray Marshall: You ask,
Dear Ray Marshall: You ask, as if, profoundly why you would want to read it (NCR). Like so many "questions" catholics inappropirately refer/defer to clerics - it is really something you and only you can answer. Or...ask a priest!
Mr. Marshall, you will read
Mr. Marshall, you will read it in the NCR because you can't read it anywhere else. None of your institutional press publish any contrarian opinions on anything. Welcome to Catholic press freedom.
Why did you? Read it, that
Why did you? Read it, that is! You could hardly make a comment if you didn't.
Evidently you ARE reading the
Evidently you ARE reading the NCR. QED.
"But why would I want to read
"But why would I want to read it?" Evidently you did read it. Hopefully the exposure to the Curran's ideas and the rationale behind those ideas (note he didn't just speak in little sound bites) will provide some "food for thought" to better understand what you believe and why you believe it. I found his arguements to be well thought out and well supported.
Ray, a lot of folks have
Ray, a lot of folks have been, as you put it, "out on the skinny branches overlooking the abyss of heresy."
Those folks include the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, whose books were once burned because they were considered heretical.
Perhaps what ought to concern all of us as followers of Jesus is whether we are "out on the skinny branches overlooking the abyss of hell."
And we have a very clear indicator of what will block us from entering the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus himself tells us that whatever we do to the least of our brothers and sisters, we do to him.
The business he encourages us to be about is clothing the naked, visiting the sick and those in prison, sheltering the homeless, welcoming the stranger -- not accusing our brothers and sisters of heresy, and judging their worth in the eyes of God.
Ray, I suppose I'm to
Ray, I suppose I'm to intimate something when you portray Professor Curran as looking into "the abyss of heresy." What I do intimate is that this is something you'd NEVER do, and I ask why? Heresy has to do with rules, regulations, laws, appeals to someone's else's conscience rather than one's own. Faith on the other hand has to do with trust, relationships, the unknown, courage, personal conscience.
Your final couplet about the NCR not being Catholic and your desire to read it simply doesn't compute. The fact you read and commented on the essay indicates that for SOME reason you did WANT to read the NCR. Given this non-computing why should we give any credence to whatever it is you want us to intimate from the rest of your comment?
Heresy is much worse than
Heresy is much worse than what you make it out to be. It is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same" (Canon 751). Heresy is, thus, a very grave sin against Christ and His Church, which breaks one's relationship with Christ and His Church (i.e. committing heresy is about relationship with God).
Further, appealing to one's conscience is in vain if it's not informed, which occur through, among other things, "assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1791). In short, the Church does not say anywhere that one's conscience can lead them to reject authentic Church teaching on faith or morals. Theologians have; but the Magisterium has not.
Finally, while I am unsure of all the teachings of which Fr. Curran dissents, and whether they are of a level that requires "divine and catholic faith" he definitely has dissented from teachings that either "must be firmly accepted and held" or require "religious submission of will and intellect" (Donum Veritatis 23). Such includes the Church's teaching regarding the impermissibility of contraception, which "is to be held as definitive and irreformable" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4).
Spoken like a true
Spoken like a true Steubenville Catholicbot
Nice insult, of course no
Nice insult, of course no meaningful rebuttal is offered. The previous poster quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you well offered nothing.
So why are you reading it? no
So why are you reading it? no one is forcing you to read it. Love
At present, alas, the bishops
At present, alas, the bishops have pretty much banished themselves to the sidelines of moral dialogue. Once they get the beam out of their own eye, IMHO, the bishops would be wiser to concentrate their efforts on women rather than law. First, they need to take them seriously, so that the women would have some reason to listen to them, and then they need to convince the women that their position against abortion is correct.
Very, very interesting
Very, very interesting article.
In regard to your comments on the priests letting each other hang out to dry... They should, at least in Chicago put some teeth back into the ACP (Association of Chicago Priests) organization. As it is seen right now it just the lap dog of the bishop of Chicago. In the days of Cody when it was formed it was a very formidable organization.
The question which I think you really asked is what can we as non-clerics do to help the priests get some backbone back into their status. One by one they will surely fail.
See you at pizza tonight.
Post new comment