17 May, 2010

BIG BLUE WAVE: Cardinal Ouellet-- and Blogging Hiatus

The abuse that Cardinal Ouellet is suffering for speaking for the pro-life cause at the recent successful Parliament Hill demonstration. As the writer points out in this blog, nary a voice of support has been raised in support of the Cardinal - or at least in the public media. I hope that this cross posting here might inspire you to at least seek out what Cardinal Ouellet actually said and judge the merits of his argument. I did and am now proud to offer what little public support this blog might engender in this cause for the recognition of personhood being apriori present in the womb. I do not expect that this will result in a conversion of heart for those who hold to the pro-choice position. I simply hope that it might help them to understand why it is that pro-lifers believe as they do.

At the very least, you'll understand the logic that organizes the thoughts of the good Cardinal... and mine as well.

Fr. Tim

BIG BLUE WAVE: Cardinal Ouellet-- and Blogging Hiatus

8 comments:

  1. I understand -- matter of fact, I have always understood -- why anti-choicers think the way they do.

    But I disagree with them. No one has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body...including that I have to give it over to the incubation of a future body that will have more "rights" than I do while it's in there!

    Uh-uh. Ain't gonna happen.

    As for the "suffering" of the cardinal, he brings it on himself. He might be allowed to speak on behalf of Catholics, but he may not speak on behalf of anyone else. Whatever gave him the idea that he could? Anyone who declares war on me and my rights doesn't get my sympathy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous18 May, 2010

    Hi Tim,

    Here is one of the Cardinal's quotes: “Why should we push a woman who has been the victim of a crime to commit one of her own?”

    Clearly the Cardinal is attempting to criminalize the Church's concept of "sin". For the Cardinal's defenders to now claim that he was not calling for the re-criminalization of abortion is ridiculous and not supported by the facts.

    As Lady Janus and others have repeatedly pointed out on this blog, why must the Church constantly call on the state to enshrine Church teaching in the Criminal Code of Canada?

    The Church's teachings on abortion are based on shaky premises. As I have noted elsewhere on this blog, the Church itself has been inconsistent on its teaching with regard to abortion.

    What is truly immoral is forcing a woman to bear a fetus that she either does not want, or a fetus that endangers her life. Any institution which advocates the eradication of a person's natural right to self-determination and autonomy is wicked.

    The Cardinal deserves the condemnation that he is now receiving. Enforce your own religious beliefs on your own dwindling and aging congregations - and kindly leave the rest of us alone.

    The world does not owe the Roman Catholic Church a duty to enforce your catechism.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martin: I think that if you read his entire text you will see that he is talking about the private members bill that would make it a crime to force a woman to have an abortion. Let me give you an example I dealt with in the past month to show that this does happen.

    I have been dealing with a family who live in Montreal. Their 16 year old daughter is pregnant (consensual sex act with boy friend). The school, CLSC and the fathers family all put incredible pressure on her to abort the baby. When she decided to bring the child to birth and give it for adoption, ALL of these 'supports' opposed her decision and continued to press for her to 'do the right thing' and have an abortion 'for her own good, and for the good of the father'. Apparently the consensus opinion is that it would be emotionally less damaging for the father not knowing that is progeny is living out there.

    I understand you thought on abortion and appreciate the fact that the church has not always been consistent as to the moment of 'ensoulment'. But, I do believe in the current teaching (philosophically, morally and religiously) as does the Cardinal.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everybody has a right to voice their opinions.

    I still believe it is up to the female to decide what to do with her body. I am with Lady Janus and Martin on this issue about abortion. They express themselves way better than I!

    Lina

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous18 May, 2010

    Hi Tim,

    If you have a link to the Cardinal's full remarks (in either language) I would appreciate viewing it in full.

    The Private Member's Bill you refer to is utter nonsense - and you know it. Shall we also have a law to make it a crime to force someone to bring a fetus to full term?

    The law is a blunt instrument and should not be used to criminalize private family decisions. I would no more make it a crime for a parent to counsel their child not to have sex, than I would criminalize not having an abortion. This entire line of argument is simply another example of the type of creeping incrementalism that that the religious right is using to try to give the fetus human rights.

    The Church's teaching on abortion is rationally defensible only if you say that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. This assumption is an act of faith that is not supported by the scientific evidence. I understand the issues, I know the arguments for and against, and I am unconvinced that a zygot is human.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tim, in that particular example you gave, I would side with the girl who wants to give birth and then give it up for adoption. It might not be the ideal answer, but it's her own choice; and if it's the "wrong" one, it's still her choice!

    But imagine another situation: a woman who is pregnant whose life is being endangered by the fetus, and she will die in the process of seeing it to maturity. She knows this, and is determined to do it anyway. She is deliberately putting her own life in danger to make it happen because she places more value on the fetus than on her own life. And the fetus will not likely survive, even then.

    Given that the Church has a rather negative attitude toward suicide, what do you think should happen in that particular situation? I'd be willing to grant the woman her choice, but will the Church be happy to support her suicide?

    There is already an existing answer for women who wish to remain pregnant against opposition. Instead of wasting time and money trying to hammer nails into women's rights of self-determination, why doesn't the Church open and operate more safe houses, guaranteeing the physical and emotional safety of women who want to bring their fetuses to term? Make them open to all, regardless of religion. Lead by example, not by legal "authority."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Martin: I cannot seem to find the full text for you. I'll keep looking. If you happen to find it, would you be kind enough to tell me where I can get it. I'll post it in its entirety and then folks can judge for themselves.

    Thanks.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lady Janus: (Third attempt to post this... either blog or my computer is having a hard day!!)

    Yes, the church would support your hypothetical woman if she chose to continue with the pregnancy, with one BIG condition. If there is NO CHANCE of success or viability of the child, then the church would propose saving the mother.

    I think that I am correct in this, but if I'm not, I hope someone will set me straight.

    Fr. Tim

    P.S. Thanks for the birthday wishes!! Mother Nature gave me the best gift of all... a 'July' day in May!! Sun... 28 C. Gentle breeze! Perfect!!!

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics