"Pro-choice Catholics"

[fpb]

There are many reasons, one supposes, why one is pro-choice in the matter of abortion; but there is one common feature, and that feature is called hiding from the facts. The facts, pure and simple, is that it is human flesh that is torn to pieces, living human flesh that is brutally destroyed, in that process. In order to be "pro-choice" at all, this inconvenient fact must be kept removed from the mind at all times. This is often done with the pretence that some other equally grave - or graver - fact is being weighed in the balance; it is done with the rhetoric, so beloved among politician, of hard choices. (The fact alone that politicians are everlastingly talking about making hard difficult choices, should warn us that there is a deep layer of hypocrisy in this kind of talk.) But the fact is that once the alternative fact, whatever it is - incest, rape, danger to the mother's life, etc. - is summoned to the mind's attention, the reality of torn flesh and spurting blood has already been neglected, removed from the mind. Had it not, then the compelling horror of the picture itself would make sure that nothing could be regarded as comparable.

(The use of shed blood and severed limbs to hold attention and mark a narrative climax is, after all, one of Hollywood's favourite tricks. It cannot be replaced as an attention-getter and as a device to underline a development.)

Now this, this escaping from facts, this placing facts in some sort of sealed mental envelope with opaque sides, of placing them where they will no longer bother us - this, of all things, is the least Catholic. It is the least compatible with Catholic ethics and experience. Our enemies, and the fools who claim to have fought free of us, charge us with running an ethics of guilt; at any rate, we certainly run an ethics of responsibility. We are under the obligation to examine our conscience; as Bob Dylan once said, you cannot depend on it[your conscience]to be your guide. And we are under the obligation to submit whatever we find to God for forgiveness, through the ministry of the priest.

(It is not surprising that Confession is an especial target of all those who reject Church teachings. As I found out, it was one of the first things to be discarded in the Old Catholic schism of the 1870s, and it is detested in classical Protestantism.)

We have to have the most desolate clarity about our motives and our thoughts. It is almost better to sin, and to know that you are sinning and why, than to live what seems a quiet and inoffensive life and never be troubled once about the state of your soul. (Don't get your hopes up. I said almost.)

It follows that it takes a double dose of self-blinding to claim to be both in favour of abortion, and a Catholic. You have, first, to delude yourself as to the sin of Abortion; and then delude yourself as to the state of your soul and your urgent need for Confession.

Of course, you cannot really be. The Church has spoken clearly. It has forbidden abortion and contraception from its earliest days, following on from its Jewish fathers, who were actually covered with insults by Tacitus for never exposing their babies. Contrary to some contemporary delusions, there is nothing scientific or modern about either contraception or abortion: they were known and practiced from the earliest reaches of recorded history, and the Church, in condemning them, set itself as much against the face of "modern society" then as it does now.

And unlike other sins, there is absolutely no margin for equivocation. The support or provision of abortion is one of five extreme sins (the other four are desecration of the Host, laying violent hands on the Pope, breaking the seal of Confession, absolving an accomplice in a crime) for which a person is excommunicated latae sententiae, automatically. And to take the Host in a state of mortal sin, let alone of excommunication, is not to take a sacrament, but to commit murder in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet a very large number of people manage to deceive themselves. Part of it is mere blackmail. The political power of a number of supposed Catholics who support abortion is such that to excommunicate even one of them would have serious consequences. Imagine Mario Cuomo or Edward Kennedy being denied the Host at the altar. There can be no doubt that the consequences for the Church would, in the long run, be severe.

However, this is not at the core of the story: it is a sort of froth on top of a much deeper crisis (on the principle that, generally, the scum rises to the top). The fact is that millions upon millions of Catholics, in certain specific countries - the English-speaking countries in particular - have managed to convince themselves that they can be both things. They have even managed to feel that they are being somehow being wrongly deprived of something that belongs to them, if anyone ever acts against them in this. They think they have some sort of right to be in the Church, that the Church somehow belongs to them.

I do not mean that there is more support for abortion in the English-speaking countries than elsewhere. I mean, rather, that it is there that a very improper use is made of the noun and adjective Catholic. In Italy there is no such thing as a lapsed Catholic. I am a Catholic. My brother, whom I love and respect, is not. We come from the same family, have had the same education and the same religious background; but I am in the Church, and he, for reasons that seem good to him, is not. In Britain or America, he would be called a lapsed Catholic. In Italy, he is not a Catholic. Period.

What I am trying to say is that there is a noxious habit in these countries of regarding Catholicism as not a faith, but a tribal identity. If you served at the altar as a boy, lit candles under a picture of the Virgin, and took First Communion off a burly Irish parish priest, then you are a Catholic. Even if you have violated your childhood allegiances more times than Hitler, you are nothing more than a "lapsed" - even a "very lapsed" - Catholic.

It is this mentality that makes for the "Catholics for choice" mindset. It is a mentality that demands that one should never be cast out of the pretty and safe surroundings of childhood - even where one has completely turned all their reasons for existing upside down; even where one has betrayed everything that the pretty, safe and beloved environment of childhood stood for. It is the mentality of Kim Philby, when, having betrayed his country and sent many men to their deaths, having fled to Russia and become a KGB general, he insisted on reading The Times every morning and following the cricket news. But at least Philby was not Catholic. It is the mentality of those nuns - or should one say, ex-nuns? - who, having practically consecrated themselves to Wicca, then shout to the officers of the Church "You will not throw me out of my Church! It belongs to me as much as to you!" The Pope himself is reputed to have been subjected to one such outburst; and to have answered: "The Church does not belong to you. And it does not belong to me. It belongs to Christ!"

It is very painful to realize that you have come to the end of your allegiance to something. It is hard to have to say, if I go on this road, I will have to leave this environment, this world. I have to decide that my views matter more to me than my world, or my world more than my views; either way, I lose something." It is nice and safe to pretend that you can be both things; to place oneself in the mental state with which I began this essay, making your thoughts impenetrable to each other, hiding facts away. It is nice, but it is not honest, it is not brave, and it certainly not Catholic. When you take this sort of position, for whatever reason, you have already placed yourself out of the Church; because you have placed yourself outside of the mental clarity that she requires from all her members.

Let us act as honest men. Let us dump all this nonsense about wanting it both ways. I am a Catholic; my brother is not. I think he is wrong, but I love and respect him still. And I doubt I would respect him as much - or he me - if either of us found that the other is playing games with his faith.

Comments

Bravo

[thepreciouss.livejournal.com]

I have faced similar frustration with the "Catholic community" at Wellesley, my school. The club seems very focused on equivocating Catholic beliefs with homosexual behavior/marriage. Not surprisingly, several members of the community are homosexual/bisexual, and many of their efforts go toward realizing a dream of legitimate practicing Catholics and practicing homosexuals. They go to great lengths to liberalize the liturgy (with dance, holding hands around the altar, etc.) and recruit liberal priests (one of whom lectured that it was not the gay boy's fault for getting AIDS, but rather his father's, who did not accept his lifestyle). The leadership of this Catholic group (nor many of its members) show no interest at all in participating in pro-life activities (in correspondance with the pro-life group on campus). They seem to be more keen on pushing their pro-homosexuality agenda than caring about life issues (rejected, I suspect, by many of the members). Some of them speak excitedly of a female priesthood.
I cannot help but being totally affronted by this entire charade. The Catholic Church is being used as a vehicle to push "tolerance of gay lifestyles." Maybe I am overreacting, but I am almost moved to tears when I witness such an outrage. Unfortunately, due to the liberal nature of the college itself, it would be very dificult to overthrow this Catholic group and start a more orthodox one.
Sorry about the rant. It would be good of you to discuss the paradox of being pro-gay lifestyles and Catholic. Now, I believe being pro-choice is far worse, but it is still unacceptable.

Re: Bravo

[fpb.livejournal.com]

First of all, the hardest thing for you. I'm afraid that I believe in the lawfulness of female ordination. My reasons you can find here: http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/fabio/book7.5.htm - at the end of the chapter, in a section printed in different type.

Don't bother to overthrow the current Catholic club, just start your own. Do it by yourself, without asking anyone's permission. Then put the academic authorities in front of the fait accompli. In British universities, at least, clubs are set up by students (in Oxford, long ago, I tried to set up a comics club).

liberal priests (one of whom lectured that it was not the gay boy's fault for getting AIDS, but rather his father's, who did not accept his lifestyle
Well, this particular priest seems to suffer not so much from heresy, as from another of the Devil's favourite stratagems against the Church - terminal stupidity. Dante, Paradiso, 29.103-120 (my translation):
There's not so many men who are called Bindo
Or Lapo in Florence, as of this kind of fables
Are shouted in a year from preachers' lecterns;
So that the sheep, who can't know any better,
Return home from their pasture fed on wind
And not excused that they don't see their harm.
Christ never said to His first preachers gathered
"Go forth and preach the world any old rubbish,"
But in His own firm truth He did well ground them.
And so much did they ring out of His mouth
That they went forth to war to kindle faith
The Gospel as their shield, and as their spear.
Now they go forth with jokes and bad one-liners
On preaching duty, and if they get a laugh
They preen their hood, and nothing more they ask;
But there's a bird sits perching in that hood
Would show the people, could they only see it,
What pardoner it is in whom they trust!

Re: Bravo

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I came here by your link in one of adeodatus's posts (http://www.livejournal.com/users/adeodatus/190878.html), hope you don't mind.

Unfortunately, that article on women's ordination is quite flawed. While there are many minor errors - that an *ordained* female diaconate is a given (I believe it to be the case, but I don't think that Holy Tradition offers an overwhelming definitive answer), neglecting the main arguments the Church for a male-only sacerdotal priesthood, making the fallacy or condemning a position by maligning those who made it, etc. - there is one major error that it makes, that of equating ordination with the sacerdotal priesthood. Even if we allow that there was an ordained female diaconate - which again, I personally do - that does not mean that such ordination leads to the sacerdotal priesthood.

The difference between the diaconate and the priesthood and the episcopacy are not just a difference of degree as the article suggests, but one vocation. Deacons are not just junior priests nor priests just junior bishops. Their's are distinct vocations in the Church. This is why the Church has not only been clear in Holy Tradition that women cannot be included in the sacerdotal priesthood, but that neither can deacons. It is why also that when a priest acts in the capacity of the sacerdotal priesthood, he does not on his own authority but on behalf of the bishop. This is why a priest deprived of his faculties cannot do any of those things entrusted to the sacerdotal priesthood: no consecration, no absolution, etc.

This article makes a couple common mistakes. The issues of female ordination (in the strictest sense of deacons being ordained, and not just priests and bishops) and female sacerdotal priests are separate and distinct despite their relationship. No reality about the ordination of a female diaconate has any substantial effect on the issue of including women in the sacerdotal priesthood. It also neglects the simple reality that the existance of women acting in the role of the sacerdotal priesthood in history does not mean that a female sacerdotal priesthood is a part of Holy Tradition. This cannot be made any clearer than by the reality that every time it actually came up, the apostolic authority of the Church condemned the practice.

Overall, the article is woefully incomplete. It touches on probably less than 5% of what is actually involved in the issue. It utterly neglects the nature of authority and society in the early Church, as well as the nature of ordination in the early Church. It neglects the necessary difference between discipline and dogma. And it does not offer much to substantiate its arguments, even the valid ones.

Re: Bravo

[fpb.livejournal.com]

This is a condescending response that ignores several facts. And I have an extremely short fuse and react particularly badly to condescension. Point one, that was not an article, that was a chapter in a 500,000-word book on a wholly different subject. You cannot have read it carefully if you thought that it was an article. Point two, you seem not to have noticed that the whole response grew out of my discovery that the (originally Western) denial of the female diaconate was clearly tainted by bad practice and worse reasoning. Point three, unless we have suddenly become Orthodox and imagine that the requirements to make a bishop are actually different from those for making a priest or a deacon, your statements on the diversity of vocations are plain wrong. Nobody is called to be a bishop, and everyone who starts on the priestly life starts as a deacon. What is more the point is not one of vocation. It is not the vocation that makes the priest, or else every Protestant minister could claim to be validly ordained. It is the Holy Spirit, and unless you can argue to me that those who are ordained bishops receive a different Holy Spirit from those who are ordained deacon (and the Fathers of Trent definitely do not seem to agree with you there!), that whole ingenious if sketchy idea of three different vocations falls to the ground.

I have kept my anger at your arrogance in check, but I will remind you that this is my blog and not yours. Any more displays of patronizing and your comments will be deleted and left unanswered.

Re: Bravo

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry if I came across as condescending, that was certainly not my intent. I apologize for giving any offense.

If there were not a difference between the Orders and their role, then there never would have been any controversy over whether or not a deacon could consecrate. The reality is that the Church spoke unequiocably that deacons can not consecrate (Council of Arles 314), long before the female diaconate was suppressed. If receiving the Holy Spirit through ordination were all that was requisite to include one in the sacerdotal priesthood, then there would be no reason for such a prohibition. Vocation is given by the Holy Spirit, it is a call. The different major orders do not receive a different Holy Spirit, but they do receive that Spirit to accomplish different things. Again, if this were not the case, then the orders would not be so differentiated in role.

The Western Church, taken as a whole, did not deny the female diaconate, she suppressed it. That is what I was getting at with the comment about the discipline and dogma. The female diaconate was suppressed much as the married priesthood was, but this was done in an act of discipline, not in defining dogam. The pastoral decision to do so may have been tainted, and was certainly held by some within the Church but for the wrong reasons. But that does not mean that the other reasons to suppress it were not valid, and certainly does not mean that the position needs to be reversed. If it does, then it needs to be reversed for the pastoral reasons facing the Church today.


I hope you don't feel the need to delete this, I intend no arrogance or patronizing.

Re: Bravo

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And I quoted pastoral reasons facing the Church today, specifically the "ordaining" (I put in the inverted commas out of respect to your views) of unrecognized female priests by a Czech bishop in the days of Communist tyranny (which was particularly bitter in Czechoslovakia, where ancient Hussite resentment joined recent Communist prejudice). I would add that another pastoral concern is that rigid adherence to the refusal of female ordination would, in present conditions, make reunion with any Western Christian body, Protestant or Anglican, practically impossible, since nearly all of them have female ministers. And we are told that reunion is a primary goal of the Church. I also have to wonder about the Council of Arles, since it is mentioned in my chapter as one of those that struck against the female diaconate. At any rate, you may have noticed that the chapter gave a brief definition of the difference: "Priests consecrate, Deacons distribute, the body and blood". Part of my interpretation hinges on the fact that, by linking the existence of female deacons among the British settlers to that of female priests among the Pepuzians, the Bishops were making an abusive point; and I stressed the difference between priestly and levitical office. I hope that is orthodox enough; my purpose was not to give a lesson of ecclesiology (except in so far as it helped to clarify the documents), but to draw every possible historical fact that could be read in small, ancient and obscure documents.

Incidentally, you might like a look at my essay on the Christian doctrine of the sexes: http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/84324.html.

Re: Bravo

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Ecumenicalism is certainly a priority of the Church, but we see from documents like Unitatis Redintegratio that it must always be subjected to the Truth. But we must also consider, if we were to ordain women to the priesthood, we would destroy any chance of reunification with the Eastern Orthodox. So, reunification does not really offer us a compelling reason here.

The example of Bishop Felix Davidek ordaining women to minister to Czech women in prison is not as sticky an issue as many make it out to be. The standard for the authority of the ordinary magesterium has always been consensus over geography and time. And, being bishop does not protect one from error. So, historical accounts of a bishop ordaining women - I don't think the quotes are really necessary, I think we're on the same page - does not establish its place in Holy Tradition, nor does accounts of women being ordained. It requires a consensus of of the bishops to establish such a thing. Now, I think people have a reasonable argument in saying that such a consensus for *prohibiting* ordaining women to the priesthood does not exist - I think it's a reasonable argument and should be considered, even though I personally do not think it is sufficiently compelling, but it is far more compelling than the argument that Tradition *endorses* it.

Incidently, I think that you are right about your analysis of the letter that comprises the majority of the chapter. Some of the argumeants made in the episcopal latter are flawed. In fact, I think that by demonstrating the clumsiness, inaccuracy and fallacies of some of those arguemtns, that you have demonstrated that the letter is too rife with error to be considered a coherent argument either way in the overall discussion. It does, however, certainly serve to demonstrate how the discussion has been tainted with bad reasoning and even misogyny in history.


As an aside, I beleive - am not ardently convinced, but do believe - that women's ordination to the diaconate is established by Holy Tradition. (Of course, Holy Tradition also definately reveals a non-ordained female diaconate, which muddies the waters a bit, but I think is explained by disciplinary practice. Then, there is also the question of when the presbyterate was actually included in the sacerdotal priesthood, or when either it or the diaconate began to be truyly ordained, the topic which now occupies my attention.) I also think that if reintroduced wisely, it is something that the Church would benefit greatly from .. emphasizing the difference between ordination and sacerdotal priesthood and the difference between the royal priesthood of the people and the sacerdotal priesthood actually being one of them. I just do not think that there is solid grounds to include women in the sacerdotal priesthood.

And, I'm glad that you can forgive early wrong-footedness and are willing to try to get things onto the right one. :)

Re: Bravo

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That letter had a political dimension. The Tours area, that is, at the time, Eastern Armorica, had just been conquered by Clovis the Frank. There is evidence that in the previous decade it had been held by the Visigoths, but a strong military presence from Britain was also a factor - my reconstruction is that Britain at the time was governed by a successor Roman government, which, however, used tribal levies from beyond the Wall as its armed forces, thus leading to an increasing Celticization of Roman Britain. Certainly a great British host of 12,000 men, led by a man with a Celtic name, had fought the Visigoths four decades earlier. Licinius was certainly Clovis' nominee in Tous, and his near-immediate action against Lovocatus and Catihernus may well have been intended to break any separatist or at least independent-minded intentions among the ecclesiastical apparatus of the British military settlers.

Re: Bravo

[badsede.livejournal.com]

You know, I just realized that the book is actually yours. A greater level of tact was certainly called for on my part. Again, I apologize.

Re: Bravo

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Ok. It's just a pity that we started on the wrong footing like that.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

I'm not Catholic, but I agree with you, on the basic principle that abortion is a lot worse than simply getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. It's a decision I hope I never ever have to face myself. However, I'm strongly against banning abortion, for the simple reason that it will not stop women and girls getting pregnant when they don't want to, and it will not stop them getting rid of those unwanted pregnancies. It'll just mean a return to the backyard-clinic days, and will lead to more deaths, and more women being unable to have children later in life, when they actually want to.

However, as this rant was primarily about pro-choice Catholics, my opinion probably isn't entirely relevant.

[beckyemerson.livejournal.com]

In 1972 35 women died from illegal abortions. In 1973 80 women died from LEGAL abortions. A Doctor can lose his liscence in one state and still perform abortions a different state. Are legal abortions really that safe???

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Don't know the data on that, but my guess is, things have come a long way since 1973. I have friends who have been in that situation, and I would never ever wish a backyard abortion on them.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My dear Natalya, you are the victim of an urban legend. Most abortions in the "old days" were performed by corrupt doctors, and were no more or less safe than they have been ever since. That was the image at the time (as you find for instance from one of Agatha Christie's novels). Those same doctors, as soon as it was legal, simply set up their own clinics and went into the legal abortion business big time: the level of safety was not, in general, improved - if anything, it went down, at least in the US, because the sloppy practices and mindless attitudes of many early abortion clinics are a documented fact.

The legend of the "back street abortionist" with her coathanger or squirt of soap was literally invented by Dr.Bernard Nathanson, one of the leaders of the abortion movement in the late sixties, who changed his mind later and ended up a devoted opponent of abortion. When he had to convince Betty Friedan, then the leader of the National Organization of Women, to lead her group down the path of universal abortion on demand, he is said to have literally made up his numbers on the spot. Dr.Nathanson certainly knew the facts, and in his autobiography he makes no bones about the fact that his first impulse in taking part in the abortion movement was to allow his fellow doctors to go on making use of this easy and lucrative market without having to go to jail for it. (He was also under the influence of of a friend of his, one Larry Lader, who was so savagely prejudiced against the Church that, one evening, Nathanson, a Jew, found himself thinking that, if he had replaced the word "Church" for the word "Jews", this man would have been speaking exactly like the Protocols of the sages of Zion.)

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah? Tell that to my grandmother, who had a series of painful, traumatic abortions after my mum was born, because she didn't want to bring another child into a household of constant, relentless fighting. Later, when she decided she did want to have a second child, she had a series of equally painful miscarriages, and no, my mum never did get the little brother or sister she wanted. Granted, this was in Russia in the 50's, but hell, their healthcare was not all bad in those days.

As I said, I have friends who have had abortions. I do not approve, and I believe they would never have been in those situations if they'd been more careful - but I'm happy to know the experience has left no lasting damage. Perhaps you're right about the sloppy practices of early abortion clinics - in fact, I have no doubt that you are. But seeing my friends going through that now, I'm glad they can get proper care, and get it done by a real, not-sloppy doctor.

You will probably find this quite offensive

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Russia hardly counts. Lenin legalized abortion there as early as 1921, and the country has, I believe, the highest abortion rate in the world. As a result, Russian population is collapsing, and may be reduced by as much as half in two generations. This is the last and possibly the worst legacy that Russia's mass-murdering former regime has left the country. And the fact that you have all been made used and desensitized to it does not alter the fact that what you are doing there is destroying human life.

As for not feeling guilty, most criminals don't; if they felt guilty, most of them would not commit the crime. Crime desensitizes you. But a large minority of women who aborted their babies do carry that guilt around for the rest of their lives. And I recommend that you study, by way of an interesting character study, the faces, attitudes, and behaviour, of a pro-abortion and an anti-abortion demonstration. You might find out a thing or two about who it is who carries a deep load of hatred and who, on the other hand, is at ease with their consciences and happy with their views.

Re: You will probably find this quite offensive

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not offended. Not really. And yes, unfortunately, the "left" side of things seems to often attract people with a lot of resentment - or worse, with nothing better to do. But I've heard plenty of venom from both sides.

But I'm always careful to look at both sides, and weigh them up carefully. As a future doctor, I can do no less, especially on an issue like abortion.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

In France, though, going to faiseuses d'anges was common amongst the lower classes in the 60's (the rich would go to the UK). Interestingly, I've heard that the abortion rate in France peaked in the 60's.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

France's peculiarity is that natality there collapsed long before that of any other European country. In the nineteenth century, where the populations of every other European country doubled or trebled, the population of France (on a territory double the size of Britain or Italy and with the most fertile soil in Europe) grew only from 30 to 39 million. The best theory I heard for this rather strange collapse, is that after the massive redistribution of land caused by the Revolution and the abolition of entail, all farming or property-owning families, even if not rich - particularly if not rich - had a strong incentive to have as few heirs as possible, so as to keep the property intact. Anyone who is familiar with a certain kind of French fiction will remember the importance of family property. Hence, one supposes, the popularity of secret abortions.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm against abortion, and I always have been. I'm one of those "liberal" Catholics who have been so criticized in the last few years. You claim that to disagree, correct me if I'm wrong, with the Church is to be un-Catholic. Catholic, is by the way an adjective meaning universal, though I suppose you know that. Despite the your view on prochoice Catholics, you say that you support female ordination. There you have disagreed with the Catholic Church. Female ordination(which I too support) is an issue that the former pope said could no longer be discussed. Teachers in Catholic school could be fired for it.
It is my own opinion that the Church needs to rethink its policies on homosexuals, one day allowing them marriage. The thing that has kept me in the Catholic Church instead of moving to protestantism is the belief in the word Catholic. A universal church is the only kind that can be fully close to God, and we need to accept our "neighbors" as they are. A marriage sanctifies a relationship. Vatican II changed marriage to say that sanctifying love is not secondary to bearing children.
I'd be happy to continue a friendly discussion at some other time.
email: wolf1156@aol.com

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Read my historical reasons to believe in the legitimacy of ordaining women, in the link given in the text. As for homosexuality, I will have to write something about it, considering that everyone who speaks about it seems motivated by unthinking slogans. I will not answer you now, but I do not reject Church teachings except for very grave reasons, and I do not believe such reasons exist in the case of "gay marriage".

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

Though once again I'm posting in on a very old post, I think that it might be worth expressing my views on the matter.

Though I'm a lapsed catholic who's trying to explore my own religious beliefs again, I believe that more needs to be done about trying to prevent and educate about unwanted pregnancy. Though there's some truth in that people under eighteen shouldn't be having sex anyway, abstinence based programs have thus far been proven to be completely ineffective. Additionally, more needs to be done into looking at why teenagers are having sex and falling pregnant in the first place, and more resources need to be made available to them in terms of counselling, adoption procedures, contraception and sex education.

Within a private school, they have every right for only promoting abstinence-based education, because it falls under their religious rights, and I wouldn't like for a second for anyone to be denied the right to practice and teach their own religious beliefs to fellow followers of their religion. But within public education systems, more needs to be done about proactive sex education to combat unwanted pregnancy. Heck, in the Philippines, 30% of couples don't know that sex results in pregnancy. This is nothing against the Catholic environment of the Philippines, but rather the lack of education and information that is out there.

Secondly, I believe that there need to be more resources made available to women of child-bearing age to protect them from exploit, unwanted pregnancy and falling on destitution that would prohibit raising a child. In Australia, where abortion is technically legal albeit with restriction, there's not a lot that the government is doing about helping to reduce rates of domestic violence, sexual abuse, the lack of good emergency hostels and economic incentives for single mothers, all of which are contributing factors to abortion. If there was more being done, and if the adoption process here weren't so difficult, then I'm sure the number of abortions would plateau.

That's not to say that I'm for the banning of abortion. Under a secular government (and I wouldn't have it any other way, regardless of my own religious beliefs), religious beliefs should have no part in determining legislation (suffice for providing rights for individuals to practice their own religions). Not everyone is a Christian, and neither should everyone have to be a Christian, and thus they shouldn't be governed by a faith system to which they do not follow.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Oh, and a minor point, supporting abortion is not an excommunicatable offense, Canon 1398 reserves the consequence for actually procuring an abortion, which does not include supporting its legality.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Right. That was dumb. I knew that it was procuring, not just supporting. Although the famous letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the US Bishops went very far in the direction of suggesting that a vocal, visible and impenitent abortion supporter ought to be denied the Sacrament without further ado.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I think that what the letter really demonstrated was that it was possible for a politician's or even politico's actions to demonstrate a serious enough broach of Communion with the Church to justify the denial of Communion as it is then no longer just a personal issue, but engages the concept of public scandal.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Did I say anything else? - "Vocal, visible and impenitent". Are you looking for reasons to disagree, by any chance?

[badsede.livejournal.com]

No, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just trying to flesh the idea out a little more.