Abortion: It is all about compassion

In her recent article "It is all about the unborn" to The Catholic Register , Ms. Alissa Golob, Youth Co-ordinator for Campaign Life Coalition voices her opinion about abortion in the most extreme and militant manner.  None of which is likely to engage those families who have been or are now are faced with such a difficult but very necessary decision.      

If Pro-Life ‘crusaders’ (and I use that term deliberately) are truly interested in promoting their cause they will have to exchange ‘activism’ for compassion a quality so often exhibited by Jesus.      Nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus as an activist prepared to stand at abortion clinics handing out roses and literature.  And again the Gospels do not speak of a Son of God who openly defied the Roman civil authorities - instead he used a much more powerful and effective means of bringing about necessary change. It is called unconditional LOVE. 

The above article can hardly be expected to convert any woman who is considering an abortion.  The use of heaping guilt and shame on women automatically prevents any real and healing dialogue from taking place.  And for what reason does this article compare women who accept an abortion as ‘beating their toddler to death’, or as someone who condones the actions of the Nazi regime?  More guilt, more shame and more condemnation!   Where is God in that?             

Kindly understand that I am completely and utterly opposed to abortion – in principle.  As I understand all Creation is sacred and calls us to be respectful towards all things and beings. And so should we.   God’s compassion reaches far beyond any self righteous feelings we may hold as truth. There are numerous conditions under which an abortion is absolutely necessary. 

In recent years the call to end all abortions by Pro-Life groups has become one of the most divisive issues between friends and neighbours and indeed nations.  As Pro-life groups battle it out with Pro-Choice groups the rift appears to be growing ever wider.  As a result the heated debate has suffered   from an abuse of hurtful and damaging actions and language.   At this point we seem to have lost the ability to interact in a healing manner that could bring both parties together.  Pro-Life must also learn to speak about abortion in terms of life from the Alpha to the Omega!

To suggest it is all about the unborn immediately ignores much greater pain and suffering so evident throughout our broken world.  In the eyes of our Creator he loves everyone and everything – nothing is wasted not even an aborted fetus.  However, if we do not first love God, our neighbour, the enemy and our self how can we possibly understand or love the woman who chose to abort for whatever her reason?  Must we assume she is not following an informed conscience to the best of her ability?  Who and what group can claim to possess a superior conscience?  Have we perhaps forgotten that the highest moral law is the one God wrote on our hearts? Does anyone deny that there are plenty of moral and ethical circumstances under which some abortions are necessary (and thereby should be funded)?   Under these circumstances is it even reasonable to state abortion in ABSOLUTE terms?

Many activists are motivated by a self-righteous attitude which is revealed in their desire to openly defy civil authority.   That same attitude, when lacking in compassion is often used by some to justify unspeakable actions under the name of God.  Pro-life groups must never think that their actions are morally above those who advocate Pro-Choice.   God judges hearts and his justice is about restoration never about punishment.  

Finally, abortion must never become a political issue because it is first and foremost an issue of the heart! 

The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion

The Moderate Roman Catholic Position
on Contraception and Abortion 

By Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian, Marquette University

Reprinted here with kind permission of the author.  (Cartoon below my idea)

Let's start with the Roman Catholic positions (note the plural) on contraception and abortion not because it is the oldest religious tradition---it is not---but because of its influence internationally on these issues. For one thing, the Catholic Church is the only world religion with a seat in the United Nations. From that seat, the Vatican has been very active in promoting the most restrictive Catholic view on family planning, although there are more liberating Catholic views that are also thoroughly and genuinely Catholic. The Vatican from its unduly privileged perch in the United Nations along with the "Catholic" nations---now newly allied with conservative Muslim nations---managed to block reference to contraception and family planning at the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This alliance also delayed proceedings at the 1994 U.N. conference in Cairo and impeded any reasonable discussion of abortion. With more than a bit of irony, the then Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway said of the Rio conference: "States that do not have any population problem--in one particular case, even no births at all [the Vatican]--are doing their best, their utmost, to prevent the world from making sensible decisions regarding family planning."

The sudden rapport between the Vatican and conservative Muslim states is interesting. For fourteen centuries the relationship was stormy to the point of war and persecution. During that time abortions were known to be happening and yet this produced no ecumenical coziness. Is the issue really fetuses, or is it that these two patriarchal bastions are bonded in the face of a neew threat...the emergence free, self-determining women? Questions like this and all of the above summon us to make Roman Catholicism the first of our visits to the world religions.

One of the tragedies of human life is the separation of power and ideas. The Catholic tradition is more filled with good sense and flexibility than one would gather from its leaders. Religious leaders are often not equipped to give voice to the best in the tradition they represent. In Catholicism, popes and bishops are usually not theologians and often they do not express the real treasures of wisdom that Catholicism has to offer to the world. That is changing as lay people enter the field of Catholic theology and bring to it their real-life experience as workers, parents, and professionals. Catholic theology is no longer a clergy club, and that is gain.

One of these lay theologians is professor Christine Gudorf. Christine is an internationally known scholar teaching at The International University in Miami. She is also a wife and a parent. Catholic theology was done in recent centuries almost exclusively by men. That changed and women began in the last half of the twentieth century to enrich the tradition with their scholarship and experience as women.

Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit scholar, said that nothing is intelligible outside its history. The point is well taken. If we lost our personal history through amnesia, we would not even know who we are. Gudorf believes along with many scholars that there is nothing that clears the mind of caricatures like a bracing walk through history.

The Catholic Story

Gudorf points out that Christianity was born in a world in which contraception and abortion were both known and practiced. The Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans used a variety of method of contraception, including coitus interruptus, pessaries, potions and condoms, and abortion appears to have been a widespread phenomenon. Knowledge of all of this was available to the Christians and although church leaders tried to suppress it they were never fully successful.

Surprisingly, abortion and contraception were not the primary means of limiting fertility in Europe even before the coming of Christianity. Infanticide was the main method as it was elsewhere in the world. Christianity reacted against infanticide, but there is evidence that it continued to be practiced. Late medieval and early modern records show a high incidence of "accidental" infant death caused by "rolling over" or smothering of infants or reporting their death as "stillborn." As Gudorf says, "the level of layings over could hardly have been fully accidental."

However, during the middle ages infanticide was much less common than abandonment. Most often infants for whom parents could not provide were left at crossroads, on the doorsteps of individuals, or in marketplaces in the hope that the child would be adopted by passersby. (More often it condemned the children to a life of slavery or an early death.) To ease this crisis, the church in the middle ages provided for "oblation." This meant that children could be offered to the church to be raised in religious monasteries. Many of them eventually became celibate nuns and monks, thus leading to further containment of fertility.

Another Catholic response to excess fertility was the foundling hospital. The foundling hospitals were equipped with a kind of "lazy Susan" wheel (ruota) where the child could be placed anonymously and then the wheel turned putting the child inside. The good intentions in this were not matched with resources and the vast majority of these infants, sometimes 90 percent of them, were dead within months. Because of the reliance on infanticide and abandonment, it is not surprising that there was not much discussion about abortion and contraception. As Gudorf says, "the primary pastoral battles in the first millennium were around infanticide, the banning of which undoubtedly raised the incidence of abandonment." Also the high mortality of children due to nutritional, hygienic, and medical debits was a common and cruel form of population control.

Catholic Teaching on Contraception and Abortion

Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion has been anything but consistent. What most people--including most Catholics- think of as "the Catholic position" on these issues actually dates from the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI. Prior to that, church teaching was a mixed and jumbled bag. The pope decided to tidy up the tradition and change it by saying that contraception and sterilization were sins against nature and abortion was a sin against life. As Gudorf says, "both contraception and abortion were generally forbidden" in previous teaching but both were often thought to be associated with sorcery and witchcraft. Pope Gregory IX in the Decretals of 1230 treated both contraception and abortion as "homicide." Some of the Christian Penitentials of the early middle ages prescribed seven years of fasting on bread and water for a layman who commits homicide, one year for performing an abortion, but seven years for sterilization. Sterilization was considered more serious than abortion because the issue was not framed as "pro-life" but rather, the driving bias was anti-sexual. The traditional Christian attitudes toward sexuality were so negative that it was only reproductivity that could justify this activity. Abortion frustrated fertility once; sterilization could frustrate it forever and therefore it was more serious. Also, since the role of the ovum was not learned until the nineteenth century, the sperm were thought to be little homunculi, miniature people, and for this reason male masturbation was sometimes called homicide. Clearly Christian historical sexual ethics is a bit of a hodge podge. To really understand it and to arrive at an informed judgment on Catholic moral options it is necessary to be instructed by a little more history.

Catholic and Pro-choice

Although it is virtually unknown in much public international discourse, the Roman Catholic position on abortion is pluralistic. It has a strong "pro-choice" tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other. The hierarchical attempt to portray the Catholic position as univocal, an unchanging negative wafted through twenty centuries of untroubled consensus, is untrue. By unearthing this authentic openness to choice on abortion and on contraception in the core of the tradition, the status of the anti-choice position is revealed as only one among many Catholic views.

The bible does not condemn abortion. The closest it gets to it is in Exodus 21-22 which speaks of accidental abortion. This imposes a financial penalty on a man who "in the course of a brawl" caused a woman to miscarry. The issue here is the father's right to progeny; he could fine you for the misdeed, but he could not claim "an eye for an eye" as if a person had been killed. Thus, as conservative theologian John Connery, S.J. said, "the fetus did not have the same status as the mother in Hebrew Law."

Following on the silence of scripture on abortion, the early church history treats it only incidentally and sporadically. Indeed, there is no systematic study of the question until the fifteenth century. One early church writer Tertullian discusses what we would today call a late term emergency abortion where doctors had to dismember a fetus in order to remove it, and he refers to this emergency measure as a "crudelitas necessaria," a necessary cruelty. Obviously this amounted to moral approbation of what some call today inaccurately a "partial birth abortion."

One thing that develops early on and becomes the dominant tradition in Christianity is the theory of delayed animation or ensoulment. Borrowed from the Greeks, this taught that the spiritual human soul did not arrive in the fetus until as late as three months into the pregnancy. Prior to that time, whatever life was there was not human. They opined that the conceptum was enlivened first by a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and only when formed sufficiently by a human spiritual soul. Though sexist efforts were made to say the male soul arrived sooner---maybe a month and a half into the pregnancy---the rule of thumb for when a fetus reached the status of "baby" was three months or even later. As Christine Gudorf writes, the common pastoral view was "that ensoulment occurred at quickening, when the fetus could first be felt moving in the mother's womb, usually early in the fifth month. Before ensoulment the fetus was not understood as a human person. This was the reason the Catholic church did not baptize miscarriages or stillbirths."

"Reflecting the pious belief in a resurrection of all the dead at the end of the world, Augustine pondered if early fetuses who miscarried would also rise. He said they would not. He added that neither would all the sperm of history rise again. (For that we can all be grateful.) The conclusion reached by Latin American Catholic theologians in a recent study is this: "It appears that the texts condemning abortion in the early church refer to the abortion of a fully formed fetus." The early fetus did not have the status of person nor would killing it fit the category of murder.

This idea of delayed ensoulment survived throughout the tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas, the most esteemed of medieval theologians, held this view. Thus the most traditional and stubbornly held position in Catholic Christianity is that early abortions are not murder. Since the vast number of abortions done today in the United States, for example, are early abortions, they are not, according to this Catholic tradition, murder. Also, all pregnancy terminations done through the use of RU 486 would not qualify as the killing of a human person according to this Catholic tradition of "delayed ensoulment."

In the fifteenth century, the saintly archbishop of Florence, Antoninus, did extensive work on abortion. He approved of early abortions to save the life of the woman, a class with many members in the context of fifteenth century medicine. This became common teaching. For this he was not criticized by the Vatican. Indeed, he was later canonized as a saint and thus as a model for all Catholics. Many Catholics do not know that there is a pro-choice Cathlic saint who was also an archbishop and a Dominican.

In the sixteenth century, the influential Antoninus de Corduba said that medicine that was abortifacient could be taken even later in a pregnancy if required for the health of the mother. The mother, he insisted, had a jus prius, a prior right. Some of the maladies he discussed do not seem to have been a matter of life and death for the women and yet he allows that abortifacient medicine even in these cases is morally permissible. Jesuit theologian Thomas Sanchez who died in the early seventeenth century said that all of his contemporary Catholic theologians approved of early abortion to save the life of the woman. None of these theologians or bishops were censured for these views. Note again that one of them, St. Antoninus, was canonized as a saint. Their limited "pro-choice" position was considered thoroughly orthodox and can be so considered today. In the nineteenth century, the Vatican was invited to enter a debate on a very late term abortion, requiring dismemberment of a formed fetus in order to save the woman's life. On September 2, 1869 the Vatican refused to decide the case. It referred the questioner to the teaching of theologians on the issue. It was, in other words, the business of the theologians to discuss it freely and arrive at a conclusion. It was not for the Vatican to decide. This appropriate modesty and disinclination to intervene is an older and wiser Catholic model.

What this brief tour of history shows is that a "pro-choice" position coexists alongside a "no-choice" position in Catholic history and neither position can claim to be more Catholic or more authentic than the other. Catholics are free to make their own conscientious decisions in the light of this history. Not even the popes claim that the position that forbids all abortion and contraception is infallible. The teaching on abortion is not only not infallible, it is, as Gudorf says "undeveloped." Abortion was not the "birth limitation of choice because it was, until well into the twentieth century, so extremely dangerous to the mother." There was no coherently worked out Catholic teaching on the subject, as our short history tour illustrates and there still is not. Some Catholic scholars today say all direct abortions are wrong, some say there are exceptions for cases such as the danger to the mother, conception through rape, detected genetic deformity, or other reasons. Gudorf's sensible conclusion: "The best evidence is that the Catholic position is not set in stone and is rather in development."

Sex, Women, and the Sensus Fidelium

As we will see, debates about sexuality and reproduction are always influenced mightily by certain cultural assumptions. These usually involve attitudes toward women and sex. A culture that looks on women as sources of evil like Pandora and Eve is going to have trouble justifying having sex with them and may conclude that only reproduction could justify sexual collusion with women. That is exactly what happened in Christianity. Augustine said that if it were not for reproduction there would be no use for women at all. In his words, "in any other task a man would be better helped by another man." Early attitudes toward women were poisonous. The Mosaic law assumed male ownership of women. Early church writers said women lack reason and only possess the image of God through connection to men. Luther saw women as being like nails in a wall, prohibited by their nature from moving outside their domestic situation. And St. Thomas Aquinas said females are produced from male embryos that were damaged through some accident in the womb, turned into females. As Professor Gudorf says in her refreshingly sensible book Body, Sex and Pleasure, the church has rejected all of that nonsense but "continues to teach most of the sexual moral code which was founded upon such thinking."

Small wonder there is new thinking on sexual and reproductive ethics now. As Gudorf says: "The Roman Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) has in the last century drastically rethought the meaning of marriage, the dignity and worth of women, the relationship between the body and the soul, and the role of bodily pleasure in Christian life, all of which together have revolutionary implications for church teaching on sexuality and reproduction. In effect, the foundations of the old bans have been razed and their replacements will not support the walls of the traditional ban."

Gudorf and other Catholic theologians do not stand alone in the church on this dramatic and important change in Catholic teaching. Pope Pius XII in 1954 laid the groundwork for a change in Catholic teaching when he permitted the rhythm method. Though he quibbled about what means could be used he did bless contraceptive intent and contraceptive results. He even said there could be multiple reasons to avoid having any children at all in a marriage. In 1968 when Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the view that all mechanical or chemical contraception was sinful, the Catholic bishops of fourteen different countries respectfully disagreed and told the faithful that they were not sinners if they could not accept this papal teaching.

Most of the laity, of course, had already made up their minds. The birth rates in so-called "Catholic" nations in Europe and in Latin America are close to or below replacement levels and, as Gudorf wryly puts it, "it is difficult to believe that fertility was cut in half through voluntary abstinence from sex." Such dissent from hierarchical teaching by Catholic laity is actually well provided for in Church teaching. The sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful is one of the sources of truth in Catholic theology. This means that the consciences and experiences of good people are a guidepost to truth that even the hierarchy must consult.

Catholicism in its best historical realizations is not as hidebound and authoritarian as many bishops, popes, and fearful conservatives would make it seem. There is, as Catholic theologian Charles Curran says, dissent from hierarchical teaching that is "in and for the church." Through much of Catholic history the hierarchy taught that all interest-taking on loans was a sin of usury--even the smallest amount. The laity saw that this was an error and decided that too much interest was sinful and that a reasonable amount was not. A century or two later, the hierarchy agreed...especially after the Vatican opened a bank and learned some of the facts of financial life. The laity are again, along with the theologians, leading the church on the moral freedom to practice contraception and to use abortion when necessary as a backup. Perhaps if the hierarchy were married with families, they could follow the wisdom of the laity in this at a faster pace. It would be a shame if it took a century or two for them to respect the conscience of the laity, graced and grounded as that conscience is in the lived experience of marriage and children.

Professor Christine Gudorf is hopeful in this regard. She believes that within a generation or two Catholic hierarchical teaching "will change to encourage contraception in marriage and to allow early abortion under some circumstances." She continues: "This change will occur because as the Catholic Church confronts the reality of a biosphere gasping for survival around its teeming human inhabitants it will discern the will of God and the presence of the Spirit in the choices of those who choose to share responsibility for the lives and health and prosperity of future generations without reproducing themselves, even if that choice involves artificial contraception and early abortion."

See also Christine Gudorf's article 'Who Says the Church can't Change' here

Religious Freedom fail

"Secular freedom is having to do what you want to do.  Religious freedom is wanting to do what you have to do."   Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs.

A recent editorial in a Canadian Catholic weekly suggested that Canadian Catholics may be at risk of losing their religious freedom. This is not only totally false but completely contradicts the modern safeguards that are in place to guarantee all Canadians the safety to practise their faith without any interference from the state or other religious groups.  When we allow our conscience to be formed by God nothing can violate that or stand against it.  That same God will help us to overcome any situations which could cause us any personal conflict. Institutional rules and regulations should always follow the need to serve the greater good.   

In the Western world, including Canada and the USA, the ‘Separation of State and Church or Religion’ specifically provides for such freedom. While such separation prevents the State from supporting any religion or from interfering with it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all. When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy. Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.

This is obviously a thorn in the side of the American bishops who want direct control and influence over national policies and politics (as they once did for centuries).  Is it because they want to introduce legislation that would criminalize abortion and homosexuality, among other matters?   The fact that the Vatican is the only western nation that has refused to sign the 2006 UN declaration that de-criminalizes homosexual behaviour should sound alarm bells about the overall aims of these bishops.   Are they opposing the implementation a national health program to divert Catholics from their real objectives.  Surely these bishops recognize that such a health program is intended to serve the poorest of the poor?  What then has happened to the Catholic understanding about ‘the fundamental option of the poor’ when an estimated 40 million American cannot afford basic health care?       

According to official polls the vast majority of Canadian Catholics are opposed to abortion in general.  But they also understand that there are exceptions under which abortion can be allowed and approved. Who would write these guidelines, when the majority of US bishops seem to demand that there cannot be any exceptions?  What has happened to compassion and understanding when these issues are presented in absolute terms?  Nowhere in the bible will anyone find Jesus accusing sinners of being ‘intrinsically evil/disordered, or in a state of grave depravity’. Removing these terms from the current catechism would go a long way to take away the very fuel homophobic bigots use to justify bullying in school yards.   Recognizing that homosexuality in some countries is punishable by torture and death why does the Church still single out homosexuals over all other sins? Why has the Vatican not signed the UN declaration to decriminalize homosexuality?  At the very least should the Catholic Church not call for an end to these brutal actions in countries which continue to view homosexuality as a crime?

The question of religious liberty or conscience is being obfuscated when it is suggested that a relationship between God and a person can somehow be restricted.  God gave us free choice should religious institutions not follow suit? 

UPDATE:  reported by The Tablet (UK) August 30/2012  

Tunisia introduces blasphemy bill

30 August 2012

Christian and human rights groups have expressed concern about the ruling Islamist party in Tunisia introducing a Blasphemy Bill. It will make "insults, profanity, derision, and representation of Allah and Muhammad" punishable by up to two years in prison or a significant fine, with repeat offenders facing four years behind bars.

John Pontifex, from Aid to the Church in Need, a charity that helps persecuted Christians, warned that under Pakistan's blasphemy laws, extremists "take matters into their own hands and mete out ‘justice', committing heinous crimes against people whom they decide are guilty, totally ignoring due legal process".

The Barnabas Fund, which also assists Christians facing discrimination, noted that the introduction of the bill "indicates the increasing strength of Islam in public life in Tunisia, which before the Arab Spring was one of the most secular countries in the region."

Is this the kind of religious 'freedom', our bishops are hoping to implement?

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/15/ireland-abortion-law-savita-halappanavar.html

Freedom of Speech

In a previous blog ‘Pearls before Swine’ I stated that the Lawyers representing the students at Carleton University will defend their cases under 'freedom of speech' act. You will recall that these university students were charged and arrested for attempting to display graphic anti-abortion posters on the Ottawa campus. At some level I can understand the students' zeal for protecting the unborn. That is indeed commendable. What is less commendable is the means and method used to support their action.


For these students freedom of speech trumps any regard for others such as women who have suffered through the physical and emotional pain of an abortion. It defiantly trumps the unknown emotional impact such a display may have on a child. More importantly these students dismissed any legitimate abortions which may be performed under special medical and ethical conditions.



While Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy it is not absolute. Freedom of Speech is not something to be taken for granted. Canadians respect that the right to Freedom of Speech was earned on distant battlefields. All Canadians share a responsibility to ensure that these freedoms are used responsibly. Understanding freedom of expression requires not only understanding its place in the Canadian constitution, but also, understanding it within the context of society and society's competing values. Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Freedom of Speech must be free of any hateful language and respect the diversity of Canadian culture. Freedom of Speech and Wisdom are inseparable and must be used inclusively. Wisdom tells us "Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you. (Ephesians 4:29). Words filled with wisdom are full of compassion and produce a harvest of good deeds; and are free from prejudice and hypocrisy. (James 3:17)



Words and images have power. Therefore we must see our words with a reasonable degree of prudence about the consequences that our use of those words may have. Freedom of Speech is abused when it leads to actions with real consequences, such as endangering or impairing human life.

The origin of all trouble

Within this

World

Is a

Single word

Spoken in haste.

Shinto. Moritake Arakida. One hundred Poems About the World.





UPDATE: The  Catholic Register  report March 16, 2011

EDMONTON - The Alberta bishops will not participate in this year’s March for Life because organizers could not guarantee that placards displaying dead foetuses would not be present at the event.


Edmonton Archbishop Richard Smith, liaison bishop with march organizers, said the presence of images of aborted babies at the march is not consistent with the message the bishops want to portray about the dignity of human life. The graphic images “have started to become a predominant image in the march,” Smith said. Given that the Alberta bishops have been in the forefront of organizing the march, people could naturally assume that they have “given our blessing” to those images, he said.




Let the Alberta Bishops lead the way to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. And make childrearing safe, economically supported, and surrounded by a loving community that celebrates the mystery and miracle of life and that honors and rewards the parent or parents who have undertaken the difficult and beautiful task of raising children. The answer to abortion will never be found in taking a negative (graphic pictures) or a militant and reactive approach. It cannot be legislated. It can only come through a conversion of the heart.

The Sex Crisis in the Church

I believe it is time for all Catholics to awaken from the shame and guilt they have been bombarded with in recent times. Much of the Church sponsored controversy seems to be focused on human sexuality. Stories about sexual abuse are now part of the daily diet, while abortion, homosexuality, and same sex marriage threaten tear apart the very fabric of the Church. The magnitude of this crisis is so great that our bishops, priests, etc., are unable to cohesively respond to the spiritual needs of those they are called to serve. Thanks to the following wisdom and insight from Prof. Daniel C. Maguire Catholicism may yet recover from its present darkness and enter into a new light.

Hierarchy, Sex and Power —
a primer on educating bishops



By Daniel C. Maguire



Here is the surprising news. The Catholic bishops are not all that interested in sex. As far as I have been able to discover, bishops do not walk around all day lasciviously savoring sexual images. Some of them may do that, and perhaps it would be better if more of them did that, as long as they found nonviolent ways of expressing their obsession. They might then have less time to investigate nuns and harass politicians and pretend in the press that they are theologians although most could not pass a graduate (undergraduate?) exam in theology.


I will grant that the bishops do talk a lot about sexual matters but mainly to say how awful it all is. They have a plausible claim to being the leaders in the "Just Say No To Sex Movement." They say no to stem cell research, no to contraception, no to abortions, no to same-sex marriage. They even say no to masturbation, a topic that does not much concern the rest of the Christian Right. That is carrying the no-to-sex thing a bit too far. Masturbation, after all, has a claim to innocence. No one gets pregnant; no one gets a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and someone has a wonderful time. You would think they would have spared that one. But no. Our bishops are nothing but thorough in their war against sex.

What then is the agenda of these bishops in their crusade against sexual joy? Here I turn to Thomas Aquinas for help. Poor Thomas had a lot of trouble with bishops who were always condemning him—I know the feeling—and I'm sure he would be happy to help us. Thomas said that every negation is based on an affirmation. Stretching that a bit, if people are obsessed with denouncing something they are usually up to something else. What the bishops are up to is power. The bishops want power. They want control. They want to influence political elections, and do so from "tax exempt" properties. The bishops want to exercise thought control in universities and the press; they want to control all Catholic pulpits lest prophetic freedom find a home there. And they want to control the sexual and reproductive lives of people, Catholic or not. All of that is a tad arrogant.


EDUCATING BISHOPS


Here is the good news. The bishops have a problem, but there is a cure. Education. It won't be easy. Students who think they are divinely inspired are a challenge to any teacher. Still, it is worth trying and here's why. For better or for worse, bishops have more clout in society than most other religious leaders. When they use it well, it is lovely. When Congress was moving toward a particularly vicious piece of anti-immigrant legislation, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles spoke out against it saying he would tell his priests to disobey that law if it passed. Congress blinked and returned to its inhospitable ruminations.There is a reason for that social power. Compare the arrival of a bishop to a Catholic diocese with the arrival of a new Presbyterian church leader. I love Presbyterians but their inauguration liturgies are just plain dull. When a bishop comes to take over a diocese the event is operatic. He arrives dressed in medieval garb with a gilded crown and a large glistening staff in hand. The doors of the cathedral are barred to him. He knocks and knocks again and then with the blare of trumpets the doors open, he is received into the church, and the medieval pageantry unfolds. Presbyterians, eat your heart out.


People notice things like that. Theater speaks with a booming voice where feeble texts and iconoclastic ceremonies wither into boredom. We are liturgical animals and Catholicism is liturgically rich. Hence
my controversial conclusion: bishops are worth educating.

Since bishops like to listen to bishops, we can work with that. It will seem less presumptuous. We don't want to be presumptuous; we want to be nice and we want to help them. The old canon law spoke the obvious when it said that "the bishops, whether teaching individually or gathered in particular councils, are not endowed with infallibility" (Canon 1326,cic 1917). It's good to know that. The Second Vatican Council echoed that wisdom. There the bishops spoke (at times) with a noble humility. In The Church in the Modern World they write: "Let the laity not imagine that pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission." That is a refreshingly beautiful statement.


Moral matters are complicated. As Thomas Aquinas said moral matters involve "an infinity of diverse circumstances" (quasi infinitae diversitates). Take abortion, for example. Now there is a complicated issue full of "diverse circumstances" and it is wise as the bishops say not to imagine that bishops are experts on all such matters or "even that it is their mission." Playing at being infallible is not in the bishops' job description.


Just take these cases from real, complicated life, and see how wise it would be not to pretend to be infallible.


Case 1: A woman is happily pregnant, two months pregnant. She is diagnosed with cancer requiring immediate chemotherapy treatment which also attacks the fetus. She aborts.


Case 2: In spite of her best contraceptive efforts a woman gets pregnant. She has a heart condition which would put her at high risk of dying if she stayed pregnant. She aborts.


Case 3: A young woman is bi-polar, manic depressive and her psychotic condition pregnant in spite of her best efforts. Lithium would devastate the cardiovascular system of the fetus and probably already has. She aborts.


Case 4: A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl is raped and impregnated. She cannot bear a child at her age without disastrous effects on her body as well as on her mind. An abortion is arranged.


Case 5: A case was once brought to the attention of Fr. Bernard Haring, the distinguished Redemptorist moral theologian. After removing a tumor from the uterus of a pregnant woman, a surgeon in Germany could not stop the bleeding. He removed the non-viable fetus so that the uterus would contract. It did and the woman survived and a Catholic surgeon had performed a direct abortion. A priest told the surgeon he had acted wrongly. The surgeon appealed to Fr. Haring. Fr. Haring disagreed, saying the surgeon acted morally and properly. He had saved as much life as was possible. Fr. Haring asked: by what thinking could the fetus have such a right to life that it could kill both itself and the woman by exercising it? Such rights, he said, do not exist.


Case 6. Alicja Tysiac, in 2000, was advised that her pregnancy, if carried to term, would cause blindness. She was forbidden to abort and lost nearly all her eyesight. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in her favor saying she should have been allowed to abort.


Case 7: In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Peru violated the rights of a 17-year-old girl who was forced to carry to term an anencephalitic fetus, missing most of its forebrain and unable to survive outside the womb. The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights ordered Peru to pay reparations and establish a framework for women to access therapeutic abortions.


Case 8: In 2006 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights made Mexico pay a 13-year-old rape victim who was forced to give birth $40,000, plus a stipend for her son's education. Few ethicists in any of the world's religions would argue that abortion is immoral in those cases. Recognizing complexity is the beginning of wisdom on abortion or any other moral issue.


SHOULD WE SILENCE THE BISHOPS?


Of course not. They have freedom of speech and like all of us they have an obligation to use it well and to display an appropriate modesty when addressing truly complicated moral issues on which good and wise people can and do disagree. Where do we go for an example of that?


Back to the bishops.

In November of 1966, the American bishops spoke out on the morality of the American war in Vietnam. They spoke with modesty and sincerity, which is good, since they were dead wrong. Still, their manner of teaching was exemplary and could provide them now with a paradigm for addressing other complicated issues. Here is the admirable way they began:


We realize that citizens of all faiths and of differing political loyalties honestly differ among themselves over the moral issues involved in this tragic conflict. While we do not claim to be able to resolve these issues authoritatively, in the light of the facts as they are known to us, it is reasonable to argue….


What a marvelous way to teach. What a model that offers today's bishops when they move into those pelvic zone issues that so consume them. Using their own example, here is how bishops should teach on same-sex marriages.


We realize that citizens of all faiths and of differing political loyalties honestly differ among themselves over the moral issues involved in same-sex marriages. While we do not claim to be able to resolve those issues authoritatively, in the light of the facts as they are known to us, it is reasonable to argue….


Who could object to that, even if we judge them wrong, as they were in defending the Vietnam War?


We don't want the bishops to be accused of a double standard: total rigor and absoluteness on sexual and reproductive matters, modesty on little things like state-sponsored slaughter, that is, war. That's not what we want from the bishops. That would make them look silly and lopsided in their moral judgment, and we don't want that. We don't want them squandering their moral authority on issues where they have no privileged expertise. That hamstrings any good they might do in advocating prophetically on basic issues of justice and peace.


IN PRAISE OF CARDINAL RATZINGER
Keeping to our theme of "bishops educating bishops," I turn next to the words of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, in his younger and saner period. In his commentary on the Second Vatican Council, he said: Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against therequirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. (Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. Vol. 5, 1976.) What the cardinal, some day to be pope, was saying is that bishops and popes who try to usurp the sacred prerogatives of conscience are totalitarian and need lessons humble of heart." This reflects the wisdom of Cardinal John Henry Newman when he famously said he would toast the pope, only after toasting his own conscience. Only in cults are religious leaders taken to be a substitute for conscience.


My next cardinal in this primer for educating bishops is Cardinal Avery Dulles, of somewhat happy memory. Though theologian Dulles, like theologian Ratzinger, did not age well he spoke with brilliance in his presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America. He was addressing the question of hierarchical authority over conscience and the proper response to hierarchical teaching. He said that the Second Vatican Council "implicitly taught the legitimacy and even the value of dissent." The Council, Dulles said, conceded "that the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff had fallen into error, and had unjustly harmed the careers of loyal and able theologians."


He mentioned John Courtney Murray, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar. Dulles said that certain teachings of the hierarchy "seem to evade in a calculated way the findings of modern scholarship. They are drawn up without broad consultation with the theological community. Instead, a few carefully selected theologians are asked to defend a pre-established position....


" He concludes: "We shall insist on the right, where we think it important for the good of the Church, to urge positionsat variance with those that are presently official." Office holders who are being harassed by conservative bishops, the likes of Burke, Tobin and Morlino, take heart and stand your ground. You can disagree with these fellows; and when they are wrong, it is a good idea to do so.


On another occasion, speaking at the Catholic University of America, Dulles wondered whether Thomas Aquinas "if he were alive today…would be welcome at the Catholic University of America." Dulles did not limit the term "magisterium" to the bishops and popes and he insisted that the "magisterium of the professors" relies "not on formal authority but rather on the force of reason." He aligned himself with St. Thomas Aquinas' view that "with the growth of the great universities the bishops could no longer exercise direct control over the content of theological teaching." Their role, Dulles insisted, "was primarily pastoral, rather than academic."


To assume power you do not have is the very definition of despotism. This is the kind of power the bishops use when they plow into debatable issues of morality and politics and use every weapon in their power to impose their control, including sacramental sanctions. And they don't do this consistently.


They assume the authority to say who should and who should not receive sacramental Communion. Sacramental sanctions are out of order. There may be, I concede, a certain attractiveness to the idea of denying Communion to those of another political hue, but even that would be wrong. An informed conscience is the only guide to the Communion rail. No bishop has a right to block the aisle. It is interesting in a pathetic sort of way that the bishops who use the sacrament as weapon do not use it on poverty mongers, war makers and earth wreckers, but only on those who support sexual and reproductive rights. It is here they try to marshal their power and impose their will. It is not for me but for their therapists to help them understand this preferential option for pelvic zone issues as the expression of episcopal power.


A PRAYERFUL TIMEOUT FOR BISHOPS


We should build prayer into our reeducation project for the bishops. Praying to saints is a very Catholic thing. The bishops may already do that but it seems they leave out some of the greatest saints in Christian history. My suggestion, humbly proffered, is this: The bishops should stop their lobbying in congressional offices and kneel for a moment to say a prayer to Saints Sergius and Bacchus, fourth-century male saints, whose marriage to one another is depicted in a seventh-century icon housed in the Kiev Museum of Eastern and Western Art. Jesus is in the picture as the pronubus, or "best man," the official witness of the same-sex union. For a long time in Christian early history, same-sex unions were liturgically performed as John Boswell pointed out in his book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Perhaps in the illumination that prayer to these two gay saints may provide, the bishops would realize that marriage is not an award for being heterosexual. It is a human good and an epic of interpersonal love and commitment.






While in a prayerful mood, the bishops should then pray to Saint Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, canonized in 1523, and the premier theologian of marriage in his day. Regarding abortion, this saintly bishop was prochoice for early abortions when necessary to save the woman's life, a large category involving many abortions in the medical conditions of that day. A prayer to this saintly prochoice fellow bishop could help to illuminate the minds of theologically challenged bishops.














HEROIC BISHOPS


My plan to educate bishops would seem zany and hopeless were there not examples of bishops behaving wonderfully. The current bishop of Killaloe in Ireland spoke recently with Dublin journalists, including the BBC. Bishop Willie Walsh said he wanted to see "another Pope John xxiii." (That was hardly a compliment to the current papal incumbent.) Such a new pope, said Bishop Walsh, would open up discussion about critical issues in the church, particularly the exclusion of women from the priesthood as well as optional celibacy. Bishop Walsh also expressed sadness about the Catholic hierarchy's attitudes to homosexuality and its policy of refusing the Eucharist to couples who have remarried.He also challenged Vatican skittishness about Protestant Christians receiving the Eucharist, saying that he never suggested to Church of Ireland members that they were not welcome to receive the sacrament in his churches in the Diocese of Killaloe. Now that is an educated bishop. The United States has no comparably educated bishops but that could happen if our plan to educate them succeeds.






A few years ago, the bishop of Maputo, Mozambique, came to say Mass at one of his parishes. Afterwards he took questions from the congregation. The first question was, "What is the church's position on condom use?" The question, posed from an AIDS-ravaged continent related to the Vatican's weird and lethal teaching that condoms cannot be used even if one's partner is HIV positive. "God clearly tells us that we must protect life at all costs. Not to do so is a serious sin against God," the bishop replied. He continued, using the ABC rule: "What does this mean to you and to me? It means that A is for abstinence and looking around at all of you today, many of you cannot live by this advice. Let us be realistic; few if any of you can abstain. Which brings us to B, be faithful. Some of you are faithful…many of you are not. So that leaves us with C, condoms. Now many of you believe that condoms are a crime against God, that wasted semen is a sin, but I am here today to tell you otherwise. You see, if you are hiv positive and you have unprotected sex and infect someone, you have, in the eyes of God committed murder. Or if you are HIV negative and you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected, you have in the eyes of God, committed suicide." He concluded: "So, my children, wearing a condom is not a sin…not wearing one is." The congregation took this advice and ran with it. According to the witness of this liturgy, "Sunday church services will never be the same, as now, every Sunday, part of the celebration is the blessing of the condoms." Now there is a blessing you can believe in.






The South African Catholic bishop Kevin Dowling gives the same message and no thunderbolts from the Vatican have struck him. In 2005, 47 percent of pregnant women in his diocese tested positive for hiv. "The only solution we have at the moment is condoms," said Bishop Dowling.










In the final exam that we give to the bishops they must be able to distinguish between Catholic theology and Vatican theology. Catholic theology is broader, more ecumenical, more professional, more scholarly and better informed by real life experience than Vatican theology.


Once they learn that they will be better Catholics and they will be better prepared to use what power they have to bring "good news to the poor" and peace to this battered earth.



Daniel C. Maguire teaches Moral Theology and Ethics at Marquette University in Milwaukee. He is president of the Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health, and Ethics.

abortion and your conscience

The ongoing debate about abortion has prompted me to post yet another blog about the subject. Again, allow me to state categorically I AM OPPOSED TO ABORTION !! However, I believe there are extreme circumstances and exceptions that require more understanding than just a simple statement, such as made recently on both sides of our border, by members of the clergy; stating that abortion cannot be permitted under any circumstances . At no time did either bishop suggest that such a decision can only be made through a powerful prayerful appeal to God that leaves the concerned individual with a clear conscience. To pronounce judgment after fact is clearly wrong.

It is a sad fact that Catholics, and others, are not taught to trust in a God who will speak directly to our needs and fears. It's too bad that some Catholics do not familiarize themselves with their rights under Canon Law as well as their liabilities under Concordats. It is indeed a sorrowful situation in which Catholics are discouraged from reading the Bible for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of God's compassion and forgiveness. It is sad fact that Catholics and others have lost their connection with nature. Through our narrow understanding we failed to see the Holy Water that consists of the Great Lakes and the Oceans and all the other waters around us.

When I read the story about the woman in Phoenix and Sr. Margaret McBride for the first time I wondered immediately why Bishop Olmstead felt it was necessary to go public and emphatically announce the Church's teaching position on abortion, as if it wasn't already known. More importantly why harass the mother and her religious supporter any further on this matter? Hadn't they suffered or punished enough by the Church? Sr. McBride had served at the hospital for more than thirty years – does anyone think she and the mother took the decision lightly and without any consultation with God? Or does the Church's stance on morality trump that of the Holy Spirit? This same attitude was more recently endorsed by Canadian Cardinal Marc Oullette when he stated that there should be no exceptions for abortions.

It is time for the Church (and some militant pro-life groups) to stop pontificating and expressing morals only in strict absolute and judicial terms especially on matters so intensely private. Instead the Church has a duty to guide us towards our hearts where we will find the answers within.

All Catholics have the right to follow their informed consciences in all matters (Canon 748,1). Furthermore, as Catholics we have a moral right and responsibility under Canon Law to express publicly our dissent in regard to decisions made by church authorities (C212,C.218,C.753).

Clearly the Vatican II fathers recognized that obedience to a higher norm takes precedence over worldly authority as follows:

Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law that they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid what is evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity lies in observing this law, and by it they will be judged . . . By conscience that law is made known in a wonderful that is fulfilled in love for God and for one's neighbour. Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to others in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the lives of individuals and in social relationships. - Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World

Perhaps a new sacrament needs to be introduced, similar to a 'rite of passage' that finally severs our umbilical cord from the religious institution – a kind of graduation ceremony. As adults we need to take responsibility for our own spiritual development including all moral and ethical decisions. Certainly the Church can assist and guide us to develop higher forms of ethics and morals but it must recognize that ultimately it is we who need to take responsibility for our decisions. Condemnation after the fact is not the way taught by Jesus. Catholics and indeed other Christian religious institutions need to defer to the Holy Spirit that exists within each human being. Finally, does scripture not clearly state: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you."(John 14:26)?

The debate about Bishop Olmstead is far from over and resurfaced  when he recently stated that the Hospital failed to respect his authority and demanded that it could subsequently no longer be recognized as a Catholic institution.    

Who do you trust?

The National Catholic Reporter announced this week (May 18/2010) "A Catholic nun, who was a member of a Phoenix Catholic hospital's ethics committee, was excommunicated and reassigned last week for her role in allowing an abortion to take place at the hospital, according to the Phoenix diocese. The surgery was considered necessary to save the life of a critically ill patient [mother of four].

The surgery took place at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. The decision, involving Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride, physicians and the patient, drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix diocese. He said abortion is not permissible under any circumstances."

The article brought an overwhelming number of responses (pro and con) from readers who supported or took issue with Bishop Olmstead as well as official church teaching on abortion.

Catholics have not learned (indeed have not been taught) to depend on a direct relationship with their Creator. Perhaps a new sacrament needs to be introduced, similar to a Rite of Passage that finally severs our umbilical cord from the religious institution - we graduate! Catholics as adults need to take responsibility for their own spiritual development including all moral and ethical decisions and responsibilities. Catholics and indeed other Christian religious institutions need to defer to the Holy Spirit that exists within each human being. Does scripture not support this claim: "But the Advocate,the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you." (John 14:26)

The role of the church is to help and assist us in letting go and listen to what our heart is telling us. As adults we must accept that we either trust in the church or we trust in God – but we cannot serve two masters. This is the dilemma we now find ourselves into with regard to many of the issues within the church. We have simply failed to accept responsibility for our own faith development – out of fear we have simply abrogated our faith to someone else. Religion fails whenever it sees itself as the necessary intermediate to God.

Franciscan priest, Richard Rohr has suggested that "a mature adult relationship with God is not possible in the beginning because we fear and avoid intimacy. We settle, instead, for tribal customs, laws and occupations as our identity. Membership in the group will become a gateway to, but often a substitute for personal encounter and inner experience" Interestingly, Fr. Rohr refers to 'non-groupthink' as Universalism and states "the only thing more dangerous than the individual ego is the group ego". Church dogma and doctrine can be helpful but eventually need to point to the greater authority – which can only be found in our hearts. Don't blame your church for something you yourself need to take responsibility!

Many Catholics see official church teachings as the final word on many of the issues facing the world today. These same individuals believe that to be a 'good Catholic' means to accept these teachings without question and without any private or personal discernment- and the need to interpret these teachings against the greater Gospel values.

Stop bickering about who is right and who is wrong. Who is in and who is out. Let us begin by trusting the God within - as I'm sure Sr. Margaret McBride and her patient did make this very private and difficult decision. Grant them and yourself the peace that Jesus confers on them.

A Matter of the Heart

The most frequent lines of defence used by some religious individuals to trump a religious argument is "the church teaches that . . . ." or "the church has always maintained that . . . ." or "the church fathers made it clear that . . . ." And finally, "the Bible says that . . ." Has it ever occurred to these individuals that while these are helpful tools, they need to first and foremost consult the ultimate authority within? That is where they will find the peace and compassion that will help them resolve many of the issues confronting them.

To claim victory on an argument merely on the basis of someone else's opinion ignores the hidden motives behind the original argument – more importantly it minimizes or devalues the potential of your own unique insight into the issue which may prevent you from searching for a deeper truth. Yes, you may be wrong but by expressing your own personal views but you will at last have claimed the very freedom that God gave us in the first place. This attitude will only help you to grow in wisdome and become more compassionate and understanding toward people. Conflicting ideas can give way to new understandings. We need to learn how to respond with God's wisdom and patience to any contrary views. Revelation has not happened once and for all time; it is an ongoing process that can never end, because there are always fresh teachings to be discovered. (Karen Armstrong 2007).
Tradition and scripture must therefore be interpreted not in historical terms but in our own modern everyday experiences.

The writings of the Church and the Bible are often expressed in obscure and complex terms. Some interpretations or passages have even been found to contradict each other. Words expressed in writing, when not taken to heart, have a habit of becoming absolute truths in the eyes of many a fundamentalist. And that is precisely why the ancient Israelites struggled so intensely with the question of committing their oral tradition to writing.

One of the most divisive issues to arise within our religious communities today concerns the question of homosexuality. To give readers an example of contradictory teachings on one of this issue I will compare the Roman Catholic teachings on homosexuality based on two separate but official Church documents not published less than twenty years apart. The 1969 Catholic Catechism describes homosexuality as follows: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them". Compare this compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for gays]".

Historically institutional religion has always assumed a supremist position on matters of morals and ethics. Yet there are plenty of examples of non Christians and non believer who have exhibited far greater moral ideals. There have been too many instances in history where unbending religious attitudes have been responsible for much human suffering. Humankind is a Holy gift from God, but we have shown that we are definitely capable of many unholy acts. Is does not help anyone when we defend our negative actions with words like "The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. The Church established by Christ, as a perfect society, is empowered to make laws and inflict penalties for their violation. Fortunately Pope John Paul II recognized it otherwise and declared the Inquisition as the "greatest error in church history".

Our very human errors and arguments for and against any religious issue must be overcome with the heart rather than the head. More importantly we need to recognize our individual and unique role in resolving these issues. It must not be left just to the institution or a literal interpretation of scripture.

It would be very different if Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups where to dialogue about abortion if it were understood as embracing life from the Alpha to the Omega. Finger pointing and confrontational attitudes merely present fodder for the media. Morals and/or ethical values are usually taught or passed on by parents, teachers, etc., but more often directly through the experience of life's difficult circumstances. Only when we are prepared to surrender our frailties can we be open to the inner gift of compassion and understanding. This gift brings a growth that is beyond the scope of legislation and law making. By forcing people to choose on the question of abortion without having experienced God's gift of compassion is not the way Jesus taught.

On Abortion and the Eucharist

On November 23 this year JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Senior Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter commenting on U.S. Bishop Thomas Tobin's admonition aimed at U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy advising him not to take communion because of his pro-choice views, wrote. . . . . "It's the same logic that has led a handful of other bishops to issue similar edicts to other pro-choice Catholic politicians: communion implies unity with the church, and if you can't accept a core principle of Catholic morality such as the right to life, then taking communion is a sham."

Continued threats by some Bishops opposed to pro-choice left me wondering how they and their supporters can so easily look into the hearts and minds of those who seek Christ? Would Jesus similarly refuse to share himself with those who choose 'pro-choice' for the purpose of bringing human compassion and understanding to the issue? In the future should the Eucharist be denied to all those who express doubt in any Church doctrine and dogma? What do we mean by community? Finally, who eventually would be left to receive Christ?

Well it appears that still some, including Bishop Tobin, are indeed prepared to take the issue on abortion to the extreme. Please note the responses to my (Bert) initial note of Nov. 23 and conclusion of the 26^th.

If "communion implies unity

Submitted by Bert (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.

If "communion implies unity with the church" then Jesus too would have to be excluded from the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly broke with established Tradition again and again as is evidenced throughout the Gospel stories. Have I been mistaken in believing that Jesus came to unite people regardless of race, colour or creed? Was I wrong in thinking that Jesus is more concerned with our hearts than what is dictated by man? Am I in error to believe that Jesus would deny himself to me if I don't subscribe to apostolic succession, forced celibacy, non acceptance of female clergy and gay or married priests, etc.? Should I refrain from communion because I do not practice birth control, believe that condoms are a viable option for those stricken or exposed to aids and living in poverty in Africa. Should I avoid communion because my heart does not always agree with the dictates of the Church? Must I be denied communion because I pose questions that may be contrary to Tradition, dogma or doctrine? I often wonder what our Saints think about this Catholic institution. Particularly those who tried to bring change to the church but were condemned, jailed or excommunicated by the same church that later made them Saints. Similarly I think about the apostles and their immediate followers who did not have access to a church, were not exposed to any dogma or doctrine, and did not always agree with one another – did Jesus refuse his presence to them also?
Do we truly believe that for Jesus the word 'unity' meant conformity? Unity to me means 'bringing together through diversity'! The Catholic church needs to again learn the true meaning of ecumenism and trust in the mystery of our unknowable and indefinable God!

God still loves you, even

Submitted by Matt (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.

God still loves you, even while you're "in error".

Jesus Himself said that He

Submitted by Bob Hunt (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.

Jesus Himself said that He came to bring a sword, that we might have to choose between our own families or following Him, and He made a clear distinction between those who chose the light and those who, though seeing the light, chose the darkness. Part of the problem in understanding these issues is that so many today image Jesus as the nice guy who wouldn't hurt a soul and just wanted everybody to get along. Salvation by means of being nice, where the highest virtue is not truth or love, but tolerance and respect for diversity. It's impossible, really, to come away from reading the Gospels with that idea of Jesus. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, cursed the Pharisees, made it clear that the road to the Kingdom was narrow and few there were who walked it, and promised to spit the lukewarm out of his mouth. Of course Jesus came to unite people, but He came to unite them around Himself. Rep. Kennedy is the one more interested in following the dictates of man than he is in following Jesus. How else can his support of killing innocents be explained, other than it serves the political agenda of so many of those who voted for him?

Yes you are sadly mistaken.

Submitted by Leo Holahan (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.

Yes you are sadly mistaken.

This comment is about the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Nov. 24, 2009.

This comment is about the stupidest thing I've ever read! You don't know anything about Jesus or Christian theology. Please refrain from blabbing on when you are so poorly informed. Get an education, especially a theological one. By the way, all those teaching you denounce and claim Jesus didn't teach...well they are actually rooted in his words and deeds.

OK Bert, please tell us which

Submitted by Christopher Peter (not verified) on Nov. 24, 2009.

OK Bert, please tell us which Saints went against the moral teachings of the Church (the visible Body of Christ on earth).

kindly consider one of the

Submitted by Bert (not verified) on Nov. 26, 2009.

kindly consider one of the greatest Saints in Church history as follows: "Francis, Francis, go and repair My house which, as you can see, is falling into ruins". Icon of Christ Crucified speaking to Francis of Assissi

each and every one of us

Submitted by frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco) (not verified) on Nov. 26, 2009.

each and every one of us

"Am I in error to believe

Submitted by Pete the greek (not verified) on Nov. 24, 2009.

"Am I in error to believe that Jesus would deny himself to me if I don't subscribe to apostolic succession, forced celibacy, non acceptance of female clergy and gay or married priests, etc.?"
- He is not denying Himself to you. YOU are denying yourself to HIM. You are demanding that He come to you on YOUR terms, not HIS.

"Should I avoid communion because my heart does not always agree with the dictates of the Church?"
- are you now the one who decides what is and is not true and must be believed? is EVERYTHING taught by the Church up for grabs, using your logic? If you think you have the right to defy the moral teaching on the sinfulness of contraception, do i have the right to defy the moral teaching on the sinfulness of slavery? Or are only the things "Pope Bert" decides are 'optional' ok for me to cast aside?

"Must I be denied communion because I pose questions that may be contrary to Tradition, dogma or doctrine?"
- you should not approach the Eucharist if you deny some aspect of doctrine and moral teaching, just as you should not approach the Eucharist if you are not in the state of Grace.

1 Corinthians:
"Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord."

The responses to my original

Submitted by Bert (not verified) on Nov. 26, 2009.

The responses to my original questions (posted Nov.23) reminded me of a wonderful story (parable) of a man who went to a priest to express certain doubts about his belief in the Creator. The priest in an immediate gesture of compassion put his arm around the despondent individual and embraced him with understanding. Several days later another person came to the same priest to express his doubts about certain church teachings. Immediately the priest rose up in anger and accused our hapless individual of heresy and told him to leave.

Perhaps there is no greater sin when we think that we know who is right and who is wrong. Especially when we refuse to acknowledge our own.