Let's not cheapen the abortion issue

It was a surprising essay from our parish priest, Fr. John Boyle, this week. Headline is “Prime Minister Reignites Abortion Debate”. He starts by saying how he has supported the prime minister. He applauds her as the first female prime minister, but has really freaked out at the speech she gave to her womens’ supporter group “Women for Gillard”.

His issue was on brining up abortion. His words were “she has to go!” He notes how she has put gender at the centre of the campaign leading to the September 14 election. He is specially unhappy “of her attempt to gag me [Fr John] from commenting on the rights of the unborn by claiming that ‘abortion again become the plaything of men who think they know better.’”

He continues: “abortion is not a plaything. Such a gender based statement  is a further sign of her divisiveness. It further erodes her support by alienating the Catholic vote and such provocation will mean every bishop in the country will...come out with what will appear as anti-Labor rhetoric.”

It’s a sad day when nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond the reach of politicians who want to cling to power. Now, this includes the topic of abortion. I believe that the PM is clutching at anything that can help her stay in the Lodge. This now includes abortion and letting men decide about how women behave. She has lashed out at men in suits and blue ties.

Funny that the following day Kevin Rudd wore a blue tie. Hmm.

But, I am not here to discuss politics. I want to put forward the Catholic point of view vis-a-vis abortion. And, now as a man who wants to defend the rights of the unborn, I am one of those faceless men who wants to control women’s right to abortion. Really?

First of all, I cannot and will not change a person’s free will. The will to decide on a course of action. It is a God-given right and cannot be taken away. Now, of course, it has to be limited. Otherwise, we all just do what we damn well please. Take someone else’s property, maybe trash it, run red lights, speed, take illegal drugs and so on.

Now, I speak out for the powerless unborn child. Tony Abbott has posited the point made popular by Bill Clinton, abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Notwithstanding his Catholic upbrining and his beliefs, Abbott should know that abortion is not acceptable to the church. I can only surmise that this is a politicians answer. Again, the free will thing cannot be undermined. But, also what about the unborn child? His or her rights.

What about the sancitity of human life?

I just want to voice my sadness, added to that of our parish priest, that abortion is made a play thing of politics. The fact that this is more than anything a state’s issue and not a federal one doesn’t downplay the person who put it up and used it against faceless men (read the likes of Tony Abbott) and you have a crazy sideshow to how cheap human life can be.

Yes, it is now just another pawn in the political mess we are in. I am tempted to add the loss of lives in the boat people issue, but I won’t go there.

I suppose, we should really do what we can only do. Other than vote for the right of a child, pray for these people. After all, He did say, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Me thinks they do and they just don’t give a toss.

You decide.

The Catholic Church: A version from Bishop Fulton J Sheen

A great preacher and catholic apologist, Servant of God, Fulton J Sheen, former Archbishop of Rochester, NY, has put many words to print and even more over the airwaves.

I came across the following text from the website of St Malachys church in NYC. It's worth a read and some contemplation.

What Is The Catholic Church?
 by Bishop Fulton Sheen

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

Catholics believe in reincarnation...what?

The current federal election has been very tempting to commment on. However, I have refrained from doing so, until today.

A throw-away line in a morning news program really got me thinking about a number of things. The line was in relation to Tony Abbott's saying that "Work Choices" was dead and buried, in fact cremated.

The speaker said something along the lines that well, Abbott, who is catholic, believed in reincarnation, so who knows what can happen if electred. Wow. As a practising catholic, I couldn't believe my ears.

I didn't realise that we are supposed to believe in reincarnation.

Was the speaker talking about another religion. I don't think so. Abbott has always been fair game (as any politician is considered public property). And, the criticism of this man is not only about his past, but things like his "budgie smuggler" outfit. Not sure why this is a problem, as I believe he is a life guard and that's what life guards wear.

But, his religion is also considered fair game. Now, I personally think that the press should draw the line at faith (or lack of it). As an aside, I wonder why the PM's lack of faith is sacred. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Tempted as I am to comment further, I will refrain.

Going back to the line on reincarnation. A dictionary definition is "the rebirth of a soul in a new body". Did the speaker really think that this was part of Catholic teaching? Did he confuse the church with some other religion or belief? Or, did he mean "resurrection".

Ah, that word is in the last sentence of the Creed, recited during mass and is a prayer itself. Resurrection of the dead is a teaching of the faith. Something that we believe will happen on the last day.

Big difference. Resurrection is rising from the dead. It is not reincarnation, which is totally different.

Hopefully, it was just a slip of the tongue. Though the speaker had a law backgroundand should have known the difference.

Still let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Or should we? Stuff like this given out by the fourth estate is in my opinion not acceptable. Get your facts right before you report.

And, especially when it concerns something personal and important as a person's faith. One should be doubly careful.

Let's try to get our focus right in the many accusations against the Church

It's been ages, I must admit and I've been looking for something to write about in the last month or two. So, here goes.

Let's tackle the attack on the Catholic Church, with regards the accusations of child molestations and so on. First of all, let's get this clear: I do not condone the attack on the weak and vulnerable. Further, I condemn whoever uses a position of authority to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable.

And, if that someone is a man of the cloth, someone who has taken up the mantle of priest or religious, I have nothing to say in his defence.

Now, permit me to set out a a few things:

First of all, the accusations we hear about are not recent. A lot of them go back decades. Now, let's get this clear, even if these were centuries past, they are not condoned. No, they are condemned. Time does not loosen the gravity of the crime (better yet, the sin) involved.

Secondly, let's look at the current situation. Do you note that the spotlight is firmly focused on the Catholic Church and its heirarchy? I wonder why.

Maybe, I feel paranoid for the church or am a skeptic by nature, but it seems to me the anti-catholic forces are out in force. And, who but the Pope as target. Why not? The most obvious, most visible and the top-of-the-heap, the head honcho. Peter's representative, the Vicar of Christ himself.

Now, first an aside which does not, in any way, diminish the gravity of the wrong doings, the hurt, the sin of paedophilia, the taking advantage of the vurnerable, the abuse of the power and influence of the Roman collar and so on.

Recently, our parish priest talked about this. He made no excuses for the wrong doing but tried to put it into context. He mentioned that paedophilia happened at home. Perpetrators were members of the family. And, I believe that he posited the position that most of these crimes (sins) were committed by family members.

And, since many of these abhorrent crimes (sins) were not reported, we will never know how widespread these are.

Have you ever wondered why the spotlight is on the Catholic Church. What about other religions and denominations? Are we to assume that they are squeaky clean?

Now, I don't mention this to get the Church off the hook. On, the contrary, I want to clear the air, though I doubt that I can, considering the limitations of this forum.

And, thirdly, the attack on the Pope himself. Now to try to set out the facts on every accusation that involves the Holy Father will take a lot of time and bandwidth. And, I feel that it is beyond the scope of what I wanted to put forward.

Suffice it to say, let's look at a couple of things about what Benedict XVI has done before and during his papacy.

Allow me to quote from Damian Thompson's blog. Thompson is editor of Telegraph Blogs, a journalist specialising in religion. In his blog on 5 April, 2010, in response to the Daily Telegraphs' editorial, he put forward, inter alia:

1. The betrayal of the innocent by a small minority of Catholic priests and a much larger proportion of Catholic bishops and bureaucrats was truly monstrous. Pope Benedict XVI was right to acknowledge the Church’s deep shame. His predecessor should have done so.

2. Although the Pope may not have been vigilant enough when he was Archbishop of Munich, once he was in the Vatican he was disgusted to discover the scale of the crimes of predator priests – and fought a sometime lonely battle against complacent colleagues, from whom he eventually had to wrest authority to deal with canonical aspects of these cases in 2001. After that, their prosecution was speeded up. No wonder, since the Italian monsignori who previously dealt with them had spent most of the day plotting and stuffing their faces in their favourite trattorie.

3. Benedict XVI is still not well served by the people around him.

Now, this post is not a position in support of the Pope, as such. It is, I hope, a sincere effort to put a just light to expose the truth.

As an example of what the Pope has done in the past in his efforts to set the records straight and to do justice to his priestly calling, let's look at what he has done with regards to Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of Legions of Christ.

Again, I quote from Thompson's blog:

The NCR [National Catholic Reporter] can’t stand Pope Benedict, but it does reveal that Cardinal Ratzinger refused the 'donations' (charitable bribes) that the Legion sucessfully pressed on other senior Vatican clergy, sometimes to gain access to John Paul II:

In 1997 [Ratzinger] gave a lecture on theology to Legionaries. When a Legionary handed him an envelope, saying it was for his charitable use, Ratzinger refused. “He was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said.

A few years later, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who ignored John Paul’s wishes and moved against against Maciel, to the fury of the latter’s allies, who included Cardinal Angelo Sodano and John Paul’s secretary, Msgr (now Cardinal) Stanislaw Dziwisz.

In 2004, John Paul – ignoring the canon law charges against Maciel – honored him in a Vatican ceremony in which he entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem’s Notre Dame Center, an education and conference facility. The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel."

And, while I have gone off what I was originally trying to tackle, I wanted to put forward that the Pope has done something which the many Legionnaires believe is just not on. Attacking someone that many of them consider a saint, is just something too terrible to contemplate. And, he did this I presume in search of the truth and justice. I note that it was also against the wishes of his own superior, the then Pope.

And, just for the record, Maciel died in disgrace aged 87 in 2008. He was pushed aside and taken from the helm of the Legion.

This was done by the Pope against a strong phalanx of defenders.

I wonder, is this something someone who wants to sweep things under the carpet would do? I don't think so.

More in my next post.

A thought on pregnancy: when does a fetus become a person?

A recent article in The Australian by Padriac Murphy notes that Dr. Caroline de Costa, author of the book “RU-486” stated that “says Mr Abbott told her during a meeting in November 2005 that he would rather be "knocked out" if he were a woman having an abortion.”

According to the article, she said that it was "disappointing to find how poorly informed Abbott was on the topic of medical abortion compared to many of his party's backbenchers,’ Dr De Costa writes in the book.’

“ ‘He also made the quite incredible remark that if he were having an abortion, he would like 'to be knocked out and have it done surgically'.

"Suppressing several possible rejoinders, I simply said that while some women would certainly prefer surgical abortion, others would like to have the option of medical abortion."

And, the article notes that “RU-486 is available widely overseas, can be taken orally and aborts a pregnancy without the need for invasive surgery.

“Dr de Costa and her north Queensland colleague Mike Carrette are the only practitioners in Australia authorised to prescribe the drug. Dr De Costa said RU-486 was a safe alternative to surgical abortion, and that it could be used to treat a variety of other medical complaints, including the possible prevention of some cancers, but large pharmaceutical companies had been discouraged from marketing the drug by anti-abortionists.

“She was eventually allowed to prescribe RU-486, or mifepristone, after a private members bill passed in February last year removed Mr Abbott's power to veto drugs approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.”

That article also said that she has used it to abort the pregnancies of 12 women who suffered conditions including thrombosis, severe depression, hypertension and eclampsia. She also said she was frustrated that RU-486 was not readily available, and had considered forming her own company to market the drug.

“Dr De Costa writes in her memoir that the point at which a fetus or embryo becomes a human was too complex an issue to be resolved by either scientists or theologians. ‘What I have seen is this: the fetus becomes a person when the woman decides it does.

“ ‘With wanted pregnancy, even if unplanned, this may be very early on. With unwanted pregnancy, this often becomes a difficult and deeply personal decision for the woman, but that is the decision she makes."

Martin Fitzgerald, who teaches Religion and Philosophy at Redfield College, comments:

“Dr de Costa tells us that the criterion which should decide when a fetus becomes a person is “when the woman decides it does”. Let’s hope that Dr de Costa in her memoir RU-486 explains how we are to justify to future generations that their mothers were the ones who decided whether they were persons or not and they were just the lucky ones whose mothers decided they were.”

If we take Dr de Costa's thinking on this, we really should be thankful to our mothers that we are all here. Pity the aborted, fetuses who were unlucky enough to have mothers who thought that they were not worthy of being persons.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Is debate one sided on the Stem Cell Research Bill?

A friend sent me an article by Christopher Pearson (The Australian) which commented on the ignorance of certain protagonists involved in this issue. This got me thinking more on the issue

Allow me to make a few points based on that article and another one in The Australian.

Pearson pointed out that Cardinal Pell's admonition to the NSW pollies was "essentially a collegial response to contentious legislation rushed into the NSW parliament." He added that "Sydney's Anglican Archbishop Phillip Jensen condemned the bill just as forcefully as Pell did...He also warned that, if passed, the bill would 'enshrine in law the corrupt view that embryos used are not morally significant or important.' Despite that, Jensen was left unscathed, on this occasion at least, and almost all the media attention was on the cardinal."

I wonder why.

The cardinal seems to be a favourite target of what Pearson labelled as modernists and ultra-liberals. He commented that these people were "appalled at the idea of a bishop taking orthodoxy seriously and expecting the people responsible for the formation of young catholics to do likewise."

The cardinal is obviously an easy target. And, any chance to have a swipe at the Catholic Church is always a good thing for these people.

The focus is on whether the moral authority of the church is correct on this issue. If the church has a right to raise this matter, if it can influence thinking based on moral and faith issues.

What about the whole issue of the morality of the stem cell research? The members of parliament were allowed to vote guided by their conscience. A point I won't cover here, but this is well covered by Pearson's article.

As Catholics, we believe that life begins at conception. It doesn't happen at some later stage, but is a continuing process which begins at conception and ends in death.

Killing an embryo, whether for a noble reason like finding a cure for disease, or any other reason is just that. Killing. Ending life.

Frank Devine commented recently in the Australian that "Anti-Catholic, anti-Pell rabble rousing unfortunately distracted attention from what the cardinal actually said and wrote last week. As usual he was courteous, (thanking Premier Morris Iemma for allowing a conscience vote) calm and to the point.

"For example: 'The human embryo cannot develop as anything other than a human being. New laws would result in there being two classes of human embryo: those created to live and those manufactured to be eliminated in research. To produce a human embryo with the express purpose of destroying it is a perverse new direction for human experimentation.'

"A diligent inquirer, Pell pointed out that in 25 years of experiments with embryonic stem cells not one treatment had been suggested that warranted human clinical trials. By contrast, in the US alone, 1422 government-approved clinical trials were under way on the basis of laboratory experiments using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells had been used successfully in treating type one diabetes.

"Pell also took appreciative note of what secularists would categorise as the windfall news of successful experiments in Japan and the US in cloning cells from the skin of adult laboratory mice.

"Serious Catholic legislators undoubtedly gave serious thought to their decision to vote in favour of the stem cell bill. I sympathise with them. Catholic journalists face similar dilemmas, though we have more room for artful dodging.

"Pell's statement that there would be 'consequences in their life in the church' for Catholics who voted for the bill roused much indignation, with dopey talk of excommunication - these days reserved for the church's stubbornest enemies within."

I'll make further comment on this issue in another post. If you want to read the full text of Pearson's article click here, for Devine's article, click here.

Great thought

Going for my morning walk, which I did not do for two days—because of the rain and laziness, I suppose, I noticed an interesting sticker at the back of a parked car.

I can't remember the exact words, but it said roughly: "Show that you are a man, kneel down and pray." That's great. Here's someone who has nailed his colours to the mast.

Who says that machismo means you are not disposed to pray, to acknowledge your Maker? To show that you are interested in communicating with your Lord, is not wimpy. On the contrary, it shows you care about your soul.

And, to show others that you pray, it shows that you are a man (or woman) who believes in God.

It is not something to be ashamed of.

You wonder about politicians

Being a good Aussie, I really cannot take our politicians too seriously.

Except, unfortunately, they can pass laws to make it hard for the rest of us. And, not just by the power of taxation which is vested in the state, but other means that they have over our lives.

The stem cell debate is a case in point. And, I add to that the lambasting that Cardinal Pell received in the hands of the NSW pollies.

And, this by supposed "catholic" MPs. Add to this the irony of the defence of the Cardinal by two non-catholic politicians. Both MPs of the upper house and members of the cabinet. I refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.

I suppose to put the boot in John Howard was quoted as saying: "I found the abuse of Cardinal Pell by many Labor members of parliament and one or two others very strange.

"Labor members of parliament are ritually told how to vote by union bosses. Their preselections are threatened if they don't do certain things."

When asked by a journalist if Cardinal Pell should be in contempt of the NSW Parliament, the Prime Minister said that this was "over the top."

Finally, I would like to quote a letter written by a fellow parishoner at St Bernadette's Castle Hill, Dr. John James, which I quote in toto:

"The public statements by Messr's. Rees, Iemma and Watkins, amongst others, in
response to the public statements by Cardinal Pell on the Cloning Bill before the NSW Parliament are both interesting and disturbing for a number of reasons.

"The Cardinal is simply restating what the Church has been saying all around the world for some time now. There have been examples of similar statements during the last US presidential election,and more recently in both Mexico and Brazil by Pope Benedict.

"People who publicly identify themselves as Catholics and who occupy positions in which they are formulating legislation that will affect the lives of citizens in their constituencies, cannot support legislation, let alone introduce such bills, that seek to legalise the destruction of innocent human life, no matter how noble their stated goal.

"When John Watkins publicly rebukes the Cardinal for his statement and suggests that such statements are meant to deny him an expression of his conscience, he simply demonstrates that he understands neither what it means to be a Catholic nor how conscience, properly understood, works.

"Conscience is that voice we all hear within us that commands us, broadly, to do good and avoid evil. Conscience, however, doesn't decide what is good and evil but looks for guidance and reasons outside itself for making such decisions. The only people who think their conscience is the final arbiter of good and evil are the psychopaths.

"The Cardinal is reminding faithful Catholics that the Teaching Authority of the Church, when it is universally expressed on such a fundamental moral issue as this, is expressing the mind of Christ. 'He who hears you, hears Me.'

"A practicing Catholic, as Watkins and Iemma claim to be, who deliberately sets aside the Church's teaching, is a little like a judge who ignores the legal statutes. Their conscience is malformed, will arrive at incorrect conclusions and they will do much harm in the exercise of their public office as lawmakers.

"They, in my view, have publicly excommunicated themselves.

"Just watch these same guys scramble for public photo opportunities when Pope Benedict arrives in Sydney next year for World Youth Day! Their hypocrisy is dwarfed only by their ignorance."

This letter comes from someone, who is not only a practicing catholic, but a medical practitioner, who would not only know about the moral dilemma of stem cell research, but the ethical and other considerations.

Definitely makes you wonder about our pollies, doesn't it?