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.

Marriage Sunday: Let's hear it for Marriage

You have to hand it to our Parish Priest, John Boyle. He really is good with his homilies. To introduce Marriage Sunday, inter alia, he referred to the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, as a single parent. It's a twist on that oft told story that I never considered.

While he (Fr Boyle) spoke mostly on the parable, which was after all the gospel, he did speak about Marriage and its sanctity.

Many marriages, regretfully, end in divorce or separation. But, that doesn't mean that the state (or rather the vocation to wedded life) is finished, or not something today's singles strive for.

It is still the best state for a family and for raising children.

I must admit that the Same Sex Adoption bill passing through NSW Parliament is a win for those pushing to have same sex unions recognised as "marriage". And, like many things which the normal order of things has been changed for various reasons, political correctness included, it's a slipper slope we now encounter for those who want to keep the millenia old definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

At the risk of offending my friends who are in same sex unions, I must nail my colours to the mast. Marriage should still be that, a union between a man and a woman.

In the political arena, we can take some consolation that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do not want to introduce a bill to recognise same sex unions as marriage. Well, so far.

After all Labor now has the Greens on their loose coalition and one of their platforms is to have same sex marriages, we can only wait and see.

And, if I remember that Senator Bob Brown in an effusive mood, after announcing the "coalition" with the Labor government, expounded on some of things not agreed on with the latter. One of these was same sex marriages. And, he said that it’s time has come, citing as an example what is already law in Catholic Spain.

I wonder if he has referring to the 15th century under the rule of Isabella and Ferdinand, referred to as “Isabel, la católica” and “Fernando, el católico”, respectively. As, the current Madrid government is separate from the Catholic Church's heirarchy. And, the law was passed by that government against the Church's wishes.

Well, we live in interesting times. The present "hung parliament" and the current government still has to get rolling and whether the Greens will push this agendum together with its environmental agenda is still to be seen.

If we still consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9), let's hear it for Marriage. Let's support those who plan to marry, are married and especially those that aspire to the sacrament of Matrimony.

After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church p. 96).

So, to those in the state or about to step into the state of marriage, hear, hear.

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.

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?