Preventative Repentance
It has been said that there are certain anniversaries that nobody likes celebrating. While here in Canada some mused about changing the abortion law (or lack of it), the debate is heating up in the UK, especially since this past Saturday October 27th was the 40th anniversary of the law on abortion in England. The “father” of this law was Lord David Steel who recently reflected rather pensively on what he brought about, and declared to the Guardian that there are now far too many abortions. Which means in cold numbers, 194,000 in England and Wales, and up to 200,000 if you include the women coming in from Ireland. But of course with that he added that by saying this he nevertheless felt no regrets, and did not feel it necessary to change the law. But he did admit that abortion has become too easy since it is often used “when things go wrong”.
But in any case he said, far be it from him to be repentant for what he did. All he wanted was a greater sense of responsibility. But what is surprising in all this is that he actually blamed the Catholic hierarchy; for him, the “no” to contraception would contribute to the recourse to abortion as a substitute or a back up for a “botched” contraception.It is rather difficult for me to imagine these pious Catholics, and Catholics who supposedly obediently don’t use contraception because of an “imposition” of the bishops, yet then can tranquilly go and have abortion. It would appear to be more honorable to suggest that their own previsions simply failed. While the law may have sought to avoid clandestine abortions, it ended up banalising life itself as something entirely disposable. A letter signed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor and Cardinal Keith O’Brien stated:
“The 1967 Act was intended to solve the problem of illegal abortion, on the basis that it was a major cause of death in pregnant women. Yet our countries now perform nearly 200,000 abortions every year.”Whatever our religious creed or political conviction, abortion on this scale can only be a source of distress and profound anguish for us all. There is nothing to stop our society from acting now to foster a new understanding and approach to relationships, responsibility and mutual support.”
Another interesting “how silly to think that” argument is made here regarding condoms : (Catholic World News article) [link removed : see comments below].
Hmmm. While I guess the link makes its point, Fr. Benoit, it is in poor taste. A bit surprised you provided it.
Eric
Here’s a parallel version that’s perhaps in better taste, this time from Creative Minority Report
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2007/10/united-nations-latin-lovers.html
According to the United Nations, there are many conversations occurring in Latin America similar to the one below:
Manuela: Jose, you are a very handsome man. I wish to make love to you.
Jose: Si, Manuela. I can feel your desire. You too are a very beautiful woman and I wish to make love to you as well.
Manuela: Jose, just for your informacion, you will be my ninth partner this year. Also, for further consideration, you may wish to know that I never even knew the name of my last three lovers.
Jose: Ay. Thank you Manuela for sharing this critical information. I too have been with many partners of which I have little recollection. This, however, does not dampen my desire for you.
Manuela: Bueno. Since this is our first date, I will let you pick the motel.
Jose: Gracias Manuela, that is very considerate.
Manuela: Jose, on the way to the motel, where we intend to fornicate, do you think that we should pick up some condoms as recommended by the United Nations to prevent the spread of AIDS?
Jose: ¡Ay, caramba! Manuela, do you not know that the Catholic Church prohibits the use of contraception? Manuela, my darling, it has been the consistent teaching of the Popes and the full Magisterium of the Church that the use of contraception is immoral and gravely sinful.
Manuela: Jose, I am aware of this fact. But I just thought that since we are ignoring the Church’s consistent and explicit prohibition on sex outside of marriage that we need not adhere to other teachings as well.
Jose: I see your point my darling Manuela. No matter how ridiculous and inconsistent it may seem, the stigma attached to the use of contraception reinforced by the church, forces me to put my life and yours, not to mention the numerous sexual partners I intend to have after you, at risk. I have no choice. That is my final decision.
Manuela: Jose, I understand and respect your decision. I do, however, have one more question. What do we do if I get pregnant?
Jose: Oh, no problemo my little flower. We will just get an abortion.
Manuela: Come to me, my lover!
Eric, it wasn’t the dialogue between the two characters that caught my attention (I had read similar versions of it like the one provided by Aiden so I barely glanced at it to be honest… I just now realize following your comment that it’s actually two guys speaking in that particular example…!)
What I found interesting was the author’s remark (”[Will] people who habitually put their souls in jeopardy by mortally sinful sex going to be seized in mediis rebus by scruples and — in obedience to Vatican directives — put their lives at risk as well, i.e., by refusing a condom (?)” I thought it was a good parallel to Fr. Nicolai’s own comment “It is rather difficult for me to imagine these pious Catholics, and Catholics who supposedly obediently don’t use contraception because of an “imposition” of the bishops, yet then can tranquilly go and have abortion.” Sorry if the link offended anyone. I have removed it since- as Aiden points out- his version of the dialogue makes the same point.
Ah, ok.
As for the seeming hypocrisy…well, I guess it depends on where/when/how you are educated. If a great deal of stress is placed on the forbiddance of condoms et al., and “no sex before marriage” is barely mentioned (or even not at all, since it may just be assumed knowledge), then yeah, I can see someone passing on the condoms yet still having sex. Especially since sex is a much more natural drive than fumbling with a condom is. After all, as far as the Church goes, sex isn’t always bad, but using a condom always is. To the mind of a teenager, that makes one much more forgivable (and therefore “less bad”) than the other.
The “abortion as birth control” conclusion is nutty, though.
This is a discussion I’ve had many times with some of my friends, but the moment I suggest that abortion should not, in my opinion, be used as a birth control method, they assume that I believe it should be made illegal again in the U.S., and the discussion goes downhill from there. End of argument. They won’t hear another word. How does one convince them that abortion, as a means of birth control, just cannot be what God desires for his children? (For the most part, these are fallen-away Catholics and non-believers, so just saying “it’s sinful” probably won’t work.)