Two Dunblanes a day? Did that really need saying?

[Chirpygirl]

I might regret posting this but although I am anti-abortion for myself, I am pro-choice, I think for some women it is something that is needed and the Cardinal's comments have gone way over the top and more people will be devestated by his comments than supportive.
I know Catholics are anti-abortion, who doesn't? But sometimes I think they could be a little more restrained.

Story here

Grrr, yep, i definately agree that the church is going a bit mental by saying if you don't do as we tell you we'll basically excommunicate you and chop your hands off and the like. Definately stepping over the free speech / have an opinion malarky. Its sad that the reason the church exists (eg belief in god, that sort of stuff!) starts to fade away by all the political in house fighting and foot stomping. Pope John Paul II caused this by the declaration that he made when he was pope (and I can't remember the term for this) where he declared that his word was that of god or something of the like, therefore he literally dictated what lines all catholics were to follow. And hence africa has no condoms but rampant aids, abortion is used to threaten catholics etc... strange that he never confirmed he'd got this hotline to god to dictate the path of catholicism. Even our local priest said that when the newest pope was elected he'd hoped they might relax and let priests marry but no such luck.. for some reason this increasingly hardcore stance seems to be the chosen opath but all it is doing is alienating a lot of catholics, especially the yopunger generations who the church needs to have a thriving future

Actually I think many people are being attracted to the Catholic churchbecause it refuses to follow the obligatory liberalism that is mandatory in all areas at present.

Maybe not on MN, but there is a desire for some moral abolutism, such as the sanctity of human life, in some areas of the population.

And logically If evryone stuck to catholic doctrine then AIds would not have spread. That argument brought out time and time again is fundementally flawed. The catholic Church maye be naive in preaching no sex outside marriage and no contraceopyon , but if followed AIDS would not have spread so widely.

Obviously the issue is much more complex than either the trite anti church stance or that explantion give credit to.

Your knowledge of catholic doctrine is very wooly and flawed walbert, but I don't want to get into debate on that as no doubt DominiConnor will be along in any momment and I've had a belly full of his vitriolic anti catholism before.

But before I go anyone aware that the catholic Church has more people working on projects in Africa than anyother NGO??

Felicity, it's this kind fundamentally flawed "logic" over aids that makes an intelligent person seriously question the "strings attached compassion" offered by the Catholic church's missions in Africa, however numerous they may be in volunteers working there.

Monogamous married women and their children are dying from aids (or being orphaned).They've followed the Catholic church's teachings so why, logically, are they to blame for their misfortune ? Sure, if men and women stuck to the Catholic doctrines on no sex outside marriage, then aids would not have spread so quickly but the women would still have a miserable existence because they'd be doomed to having more children than they can reasonably provide for, forcing the family into poverty. Abstenance (SP ?) takes 2 participants to work and men are far less keen on the principle than women as they don't end up carrying the can as far as reponsibility for a large brood is concerned. It's just the culture in many parts of Africa for women to be the mainstay of the family in more ways than one.

Perhaps the Catholic church is like the US armed forces and accepts the "collateral damage" , in this case caused by aids, in its war to win converts.

Isn't there a parable about God sparing a whole town of sinners his wrath because there was one just, clean living individual amongst them or something like that. The aids theory would therefore seem to be at odds with the bible's teachings. That is one thing about the Catholic church that sticks in my mind from having attended a Catholic primary school, it seemed to focus more on the Catholic church's rules and doctrines (catechism etc) than the bible itself.

Rant over

the comments only served the needs of a patriachical organisation in treating women as 2nd class citizens, who are mere vessels for carrying the next generation

What, no DominiConnor on a thread about Catholic policy ?

Grrr, yeah, I was wondering that. Perhaps he was drawn off the scent by the thread title

There's a piece about it here in the Times.

Good piece

I was hoping Felicity might pop back

Well, to be fair, I thought she had a point. In simple logic terms, the contraception ban by the RC church should be irrelevant in the AIDS question, because if people are that determined to follow RC church law, they also wouldn't be sleeping with anyone but the one person, because the RC church bans that too.

I appreciate that in practice that's not the case, and I'm not a catholic and don't hold to the no contraception thing myself, but I think the fact is, men don't use contraception because men don't like using the forms that protect against AIDS most effectively. In that sense, the church has very little to do with it.

But in all honesty, this is a bit of a different topic to the OP, really.

I think the comments about MP's not being allowed to have communion if they don't vote against abortion were really ,really, really stupid.

"The pastoral reality is, as the Pope has said recently in Mexico, that if a Catholic politician manifestly, clearly goes against the church's teaching, then they ought to remove themselves from receiving communion, because it would be a cause of great scandal". (Archbishop of Cardiff).

Surely the most important thing is that an MP follows their conscience, not whether what they do is a scandal for the church.

I think the Dunblane comment was not a good comparison. An abortion ends the the life of a foetus not a child. It ends the potential of a life, but life is about being a 57 year old man with a comb over and a paunch as much as being a child.

It is a bit OT (off topic) but although 2 Dunblanes a day is a horrible thought, it makes me equally mad to think of children living a hand to mouth existance and mothers condemned to having more children than they and their partners can provide for because of the "no contraception policy" (I personally don't think that the rhythm method/withdrawl method works sufficiently well in any society to be considered an effective method of contraception) Abstenence (sp ?) anyone ?

I think he's using 'scandal' as a theological term there, not scandal as in 'naughty things being in all the papers'.

I think, in that sense, it is an act of evil that causes the spiritual ruin of another. In this case, the idea is that by being an active part of a church that teaches one thing, and supporting something that the church is dead-set against, you are causing confusion and setting a bad example. Something like that.

And sure, you can follow your conscience. Your conscience might tell you it's ok for you to sleep with your brothers wife, but you'd still be in a sticky wicket regarding the rules of the church. That's rather the point of organized religion, isn't it?

Grrr, I don't disagree with you. I've met some pretty scary fundamentalist Catholics who believe that even something like the rhythm method, or the more effective modern versions of it, are completely disallowed. Doing anything to avoid having children, bar just not ever sleeping together again, is considered sinful.

I recall a situation where someone had an illness that meant she had to take meds that would cause horrendous physical deformities in a baby, but she was told that it would still be wrong to use contraception. In fact, she was told they should simply abstain. For crying out loud.

Personally, I am pro-life, but I think that the RC church shoots itself in the foot with the no-contraception thing. It's perfectly possible to be welcoming of children without abdicating any and all responsibility in the planning of them.

oh I see - I thought scandal meant something that would be embarassing to the church, so it was more important that the church was protected than that the MP's followed the teachings of the church.

Although I am in no way sympathetic to the Catholic position, I don't quite see the fuss.
They are 100% clear that abortion is a top grade sin.
There is a clear and reasonable logic that a politician who does not use his power against something is condoning it.

We're not talking about something that requires judgement in hard to predict areas. This is not (for instance) about trade sanctions on Iran. Lots of different, valid views there.

Many politicians are more than happy to use their status as a "good christian" to get votes.

But when their church points out that they are sinning on a grand scale they act all offended.

It is the job of a prince of the church to say this sort of thing. That's why he gets the nice house, "fact finding missions" to attractive places and the posh hat.

O'Brien is taking a principled stand, a position so rare in the Catholic hierarchy that many commentators seem to imply that the rareness is due to it being illegal, or some gross attack on our culture.

On other issues the Cardinal deserves to spend an eternity burning in hell, but he is doing what he believes is right.
Shame he doesn't do it on anything that might upset his boos.

applauds DC

Agree 100%

What a twatty thing to say. Those poor parents if they saw this.
An abortion is a personal choice, no one chose to send their beautiful children to school and have some nutter blow them away.
Always said the catholic church was a sick lot!!

Also if they let people use condoms it would save a whole lot of unwanted children, abortions and slow the spread of AIDS

I'm not Catholic but I think he had every right to say what he did as I agree with him (although I am not prepared to get into any fights tonight on MN). Abortion is very sad and ends a life however it is justified and dressed up. No doubt there is a case for some instances but abortion is a privilage that often is abused - I think this was the point he was trying to make. This topic always hits a nerve which is right, it would be a terrible world that we live in if it didn't iykwim.

'A principled stand' usually refers to someone who is taking a risk because of their beliefs. The cardinal isn't risking anything, he's just taking a cheap shot at people who happen not to live by his rules. An easy win, for him.

If he wants to live in a theocracy, he is free to leave and go elsewhere.

I can't believe anyone would think he is ok to compare someone having an abortion (ok I know it is traumatic for a lot of people) to having your child that you have brought in to the world, loved, watched grow, seen as a real person killed, shot in a school where they should have been safe painting pictures and playing with friends.

No one in their right mind could compair the murder of a 5 or 6 year old child who was old enough to see friends dying and know and be terrified that they were about to die, to an aborted foetus.

It was a sick comparison.

Edam is right, a principled stand does involve personal risk, and to be fair, he has been personally vilified.
But he has done us all a service.

There are people who genuinely believe that a society guided by faith would be more tolerant, supportive and better to live in.

Imagine that abortion was illegal, as many Christians, not just Catholics would like.

How would you enforce this ?

Ireland has the answer. It's police have carried out "examinations" of women accused of being pregnant that has left many requiring hospital treatment.
Do I need to draw diagrams ?

However horrible that will be for the individuals caught up in this, it may be that our society needs a dose of religious law.

The major religions are demanding and getting immunity from the law. Look at the fuss over gay adoption, or the way Moslem groups break civil order laws with impunity.

If my company did work for the government and refused to let Catholics use a service paid ofr by the taxpayer, we'd be shut down the next day. But Christians groups have captured a huge % of the education budget, ans unless you are exactly the right sort of Christian, the school your taxes paid for, is denied to your kids.

Kimi, so it's an unfair comparison because the Dunblane children were wanted and cared for children, and aborted children are not? Not sure I follow the logic there.

DC, I used to think you were quite obnoxious before you explained yourself the other day, but I find I don't disagree with you about a lot of that, particularly the education thing.
Personally, if abortion were illegal, I'd like to see an enormous amount of effort put into education about contraception and proper funded provision for that. Which is another difference I have with the RC church, I suppose.

It's all very well to require the faithful to adhere to the rules about abstinence, but it's just a complete no-go to require people who don't hold to your beliefs to refrain from doing something which, properly done, physically harms no-one.

The Dunblane children were indeed loved and wanted and, importantly, actual living breathing children.

An embryo or foetus is NOT the same and its rights, if it has any, do not in any sense outweigh the rights of a real, living and breathing woman. Furthermore abortion is a decision taken by a woman about her own body. The Dunblane murders were a massacre carried out by an evil man. The two are not comparable and to suggest they are is an insult to the grieving parents who were robbed of their children.