However, I was seriously shocked to read on John Smeaton's blog that the C V Monitor is saying abortion should be legal - and indeed that that is our bishops', and most Catholics', view.
I really wondered if John had got it wrong: it is always possible to mis-read something, and to be honest, I don't think he always approaches CV in a completely neutral frame of mind.
So I went to the CV Monitor blog, and there it was:
But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion should be legal, most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.One might legitimately dispute whether, tactically, we should be campaigning for incremental restriction or an outright ban (I myself have shifted from the former position to the latter over recent years), but surely no Catholic in good conscience could describe himself as "Someone who accepts abortion should be legal" !!
Let us be charitable, and assume they did not mean it (at least while we seek clarification). But at the very least, it betrays monumental incompetence in an organisation set up to be a public voice for Catholic truth.
To be quite clear, here is what the Catechism says (§2270): Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
(my emphasis)
By no stretch of the imagination is that compatible with accepting that abortion should be legal.
Let us hope that CV quickly move to clarify that they didn't mean what they wrote. Let us remember that one individual, presumably, wrote this.
So let us not condemn all those who have been trained by CV. The ones I know, I am sure, will be as appalled by this as anyone, and do not need tarring with this brush.
UPDATE @ 22.52
The post has now been corrected to read:
But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion cannot be prohibited immediately, most informed Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.
.jpg)
4 comments:
You are right. Even in the redacted version, this makes no sense and certainly underplays the absolute opposition to abortion which is the Church's clear position. My only problem is that I can't show my support for Smeaton on his own blog because he's not brave enough to allow comments. Doesn't he have confidence in his own convictions?
This is still bad. if the Catechism talks about an absolute right to life then we should speak the same language and if we are going to be persecuted for that - bring it on
I agree with you both: I posted the correction immediately I saw it, out of justice and charity.
However, it was late and I had no wish to stay up and comment on it.
I think the whole CV post is still problematic, and may well post further on that.
The author seems unable to distinguish between a moral position and political tactics.
Fr John is right - if we are not clear in how we speak about abortion then we risk blurring our own and others understanding of the faith.
What interests me is what point is the author is trying to make. It seems to me he is trying to present the Catholic position as a tolerant one in contrast to the Student Union ban. However to do this he (or she) needs to bend the Church's teaching (beyond breaking point I would argue). Perhaps the perception (not mine – I think the reverse is more likely to be true) is that being more tolerant will make the Faith more attractive.
If I am right, I wonder whether other notable failures to articulate the Church's teaching clearly can be traced to the same desire.
When it comes to abortion I don't want to be tolerant and I am happy to present an “extreme” view. I think uncompromising opposition to abortion based on an understanding of human dignity and sacredness is more honest and enables a more compelling case to be put.
Choosing between incremental changes or an outright ban is a false choice. Obviously to protect innocent life it make senses to support any proposal for a reduction in the availability of abortion but one must at the same time be honest and say the reason for such support is based on an understanding that all live in the womb should be protected by law.
Post a Comment