The church is anemic when it comes to abortion
Anemic !!!!! We shall form a pro life [republican?] group in every parish ................Those are hardly fighting words.
The church is anemic in fight against abortion. A million plus abortions a year and the church does nothing except threaten excommunication??
The church should be doing several things. Excommunication is the weakest response that the church has.
1] The church should create a 'life' attitude in society. Men and women are should be responsible for the consequences of sex outside or inside marriage.Giving birth should be a joyous occasion and a reason for celebration. This should be a focal point of the prayer life of the church while the abortion problem persists. The church should have special prayerful consideration for pergnant women. There should be bonding prayers for the new mother. There should be classes public or private for the new mother. Help should be offered at every level to any pregnant woman whether Catholic, Christian or 'pagan' What we need is a right attitude to life.
2] The church should offer an adoption choice for every fetus. Everyone everywhere should know that the church will take care of any fetus [perfectly or imperfectly formed ] Care for a million babies and the confinement expenses for the mothers would not break the church financially but would rather the church might burst at the seams.
3] There are at least a million young couples right now who want children and are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go through IVF to have a child. Adoption is easy and actually profitable.
4]Allthough sex education would not help in most situations it would enable people to openly understand and discuss problems and solutions.Pregnancy is not a dirty word -its a beautiful thing whether the mother and father are married or not.Neither is childbirth a dirty word
5]Forget the idea that the solution to the problem is in Washington. Repeat The solution to the problem is not in Washington. The church has the resources and does not have the will or intelligence.We don't rely on the Supreme Court for moral leadership.Are they our bishops?
This posting can be the beginning of a long list of possibly better ideas and a course of action that will bring God's Blessings. The Holy Spirit will speak through you if you let Him.... I would like a complete copy of the posting to be sent to all the bishops of the US and Canada when the posting stops.
"While I am no great fan of
"While I am no great fan of abortion as a "great" way to solve a problem, it probably has a place."
Wow. Well in that case, while I am no fan of great fan of nuclear weapons (preemptive war, chemical weapons, biological weapons, concentration camps, what ever is most offensive to you) as a "great" way to solve a problem, they probably have a place. Abortion kills more than any of the above have, so these probably have a place to, right? Objective moral evil is evil and can not be used as a route to any good.
(and before anyone asks, I am opposed to all those things listed above, they are all including abortion, grave moral evils. however, abortion kills more than the others, and it only kills those who are innocent and have no voice, the cruelest oppression of all. It is targeted (in practice and in its original theory) toward 'less desirable' populations, that is minorities and the poor, which makes it even worse.)
I think you are on to
I think you are on to something. The church needs to address the underlying problems of abortion such as:
1) church condemnation of women who are pregnant outside of marriage
2) a place to live for a pregnant homeless woman
3) providing medical care for an uninsured pregnant woman
4) providing support for a single pregnant woman who is the sole provider for her family
5) providing counseling and monetary support for a woman who becomes pregnant after a rape
Other ways the church could support life if by supporting responsible choices to avoid unwanted pregnancies such as BIRTH CONTROL. Abstinence and/or the rhythm method are of no use in a marriage where the husband does not support those same choices. As far as in vitro pregnancies, I believe many of those people would still choose that method because they want a child born of their own bodies. If it was just a matter of having a child, there are plenty of babies in this world that need a home. Just a few thoughts.
Thanks for those ideas. My
Thanks for those ideas. My daughter has done the invitro thing twice without success and naturally she would prefer her own child. [True, mlou, there are plenty of babies that need homes but those who would be aborted especially need homes.]
I think the church is very strong on condemning non-conjugal sex in [and out of marriage] but not so strong on accepting and welcoming conception. If the church promotes sympto-thermal courses and that is a good thing, on the other hand that in itself promotes a negative attitude toward pregnancy and birth. Is the matter of abortion a serious problem or not? Is the church handling the problem by condemnation or in a positive way?
Annie, could you come up
Annie, could you come up with a plan of action that would reduce abortion in the next year without depending on the Supreme court. The Supreme court can only at best make it legal or illegal --The human conscience makes it moral or immoral. I'll get back to this but I really would like a number of actions that the bishops could act on....
sevenup, at the beginning of
sevenup, at the beginning of the american catholic church's decision to go political on the abortion issue, there was a strong plea for them not to go that direction, that it was a landmine and would end up making the church look like it was just finding a way to support a particular political party in the nation (would guess that part of that plea came from none other than NCR, among others). I think that this recent history suggests that the american catholic church painted itself into just the corner that they were warned about...where even church sacraments would be brought into the political arena. And, hopefully, where eventually the church's tax exempt status will be seriously challenged as a result.
It would seem fairly obvious that the way to reduce abortion (which has been happening) is to teach abstinence and birth control. If you want to know what works. Yes, make choices, folks...not just sit in armchairs. It's called the principle of tolerance of less evil, and despite vatican's claims that that position does not adhere to this one, I say DUH.
The other pretty clear issue is that abortion is not in the same league as sins of passion, for instance, although it is put in a worse light. It is based on need or perceived need. And the only way to deal with that is to deal with the causes for the need or perceived need. That's called a social justice issue, which seems to ring no bells with many catholics. It's not legitimate to turn an issue of need or perceived need into an issue of individual morality, save to make life easy on yourself, which is what the church has done. Documents on social justice are separated, not integrated, into issues of individual morality, especially when it comes to women. The church has chosen the weaker moral stance. I have chosen a stronger one.
If you think that I sit on my butt, you need to settle down and quit judging people you don't know. Perhaps a good place to begin a lenten journey.
Annie,don't take the
Annie,don't take the 'sitting on one's butt thing ' personally. I am not judging you personally.I think that most people on here are involved.
I would like to see the bishops develop a plan that could decrease the number of abortions and that is possible with the help of people here. Where do we go from here? I don't think we painted ourselves into a corner but as usual we took the 'thou shalt not' approach but perhaps the church did paint itself into a corner by making decisions without the involvement of women. Life should be the result of love and comes with responsibilities. When the bishops meet an consult a 'chosen' woman consultant I presume she is chosen like the mother of God from a 'chosen' few.
Back to the subject....... If the people here can come up with a real plan of action and we can get it to the Bishops then it's up to them. [Perhaps the Holy Spirit has been on vacation....or is it the bishops]
No, sevenup, I didn't really
No, sevenup, I didn't really take it so personally about a half minute after I sent the message and re-read your two and figured out better what you were actually probably trying to say. However, can't edit like in the fast old days on here, so I had to let it go. But I will mention that anyone who seriously (?) links pro-life with the republican party has already succeeded in setting my brain cells on edge. I find your writing style hard to figure sometimes, but perhaps you just like to be provocative?
The bishops aren't going to "develop a plan that could decrease the number of abortions." How could they? They can only speak to moral theology these days, not even to ministry or pastoral care. There was a time they wrote documents as a conference in regard to public policy, but I doubt that they could pull together such a document now, or that they would be "allowed" to. The traditional understanding was that that was that the lay person was supposed to do--this work of bringing the catholic view to the public world, since we did not carry the same obligations of religious obedience to the dictates of moral theology in the public sphere. So catholics were expected to carry catholic teachings into their decisions in the public sphere. THAT WAS ONCE OUR JOB. It was not expected to look and smell like moral theology, and yes, it involved the principle of tolerance for less evil, and understanding that the requirements of social justice include understanding and dealing with the unintended as well as the intended consequences of any social policy. Now you may lose your rights to the sacraments if you do what was once our job to do. So, less and less are there answers that will actually work, because they are not pure and perfect (like in the next life), as we keep hearing our religious ideologues say. So, while I could devise a plan for the bishops, you can see for all the writing on this thread that no one believes the bishops could or would do anything. If the church can't even step back from the condom issue in Africa long enough for condoms to be dispensed to keep at least women and children from bad deaths, as Frannie pointed out so succinctly in another post, why on earth do you think they are going to do anything in this country?
Again, as I said before, I know you mean well...
It is easy to sit on one's
It is easy to sit on one's butt and do nothing. I have searched all the concordiae and can't find a reference to sitting on one's butt.
The Church has taken the
The Church has taken the course that's absolutely the easiest for itself as an institution.
As sharp as the people are
As sharp as the people are in this cafe I see no reason why together we can not build on the first suggestions or come up with other suggestions that could decrease the number of abortions in the Americas.
I don't disagree with that
I don't disagree with that observation at all. I think that we do have knowledge of how to decrease the number of abortions in this country. I just don't think we're going to see that knowledge put to use in the church's positions any time soon. When catholic people bring that knowledge into the discussion of abortion, it is somehow presumed that they are disobeying the church somehow, or are "pro-abortion," which is such an example of spin talk. I've never understood that leap, but I think that moral doctrine seems safe, and social and political responses that don't read exactly the same frighten people because they think they are getting dirty somehow. that's the best I can tell from all this. I just can't see an up-side for awhile, although since some of the democratic leadership is taking on a more pragmatic, let's-work-together-to-decrease-the-rate approach, I do see signs for some political optimism pulling the sides into the middle sometime in the future. Since that's Hilary Clinton's approach now, she will be scorched from all sides for moving to the middle, but sometime in the future a republican will be able to say exactly the same thing and have the pragmatic american approach applauded. so perhaps your question is really a part of that, sevenup. we can hope.
You speak well colcoch.
You speak well colcoch. Quite a few posts here are from 'oppositional personalities' and we seem to be making little progress on the wrong track.