Where faith and politics meet
While one local politician has firmly nailed his colours to the mast on the morality of homosexuality, Cardinal Keith O’Brien is demanding Scottish politicians do likewise on the issue of abortion. In a sermon to mark the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act, he will instruct his members not to vote for pro-abortion politicians and the Church may exclude Roman Catholic politicians from Communion if they vote for pro-abortion measures. The BBC correspondent claims that past Church criticism of the Labour Party on the issue may already have had some electoral impact (Realplayer reqd). The comments have been described as “threatening” and “inflammatory”.
Given the amount of lapsed Catholics in Western Europe nowadays, and the fact that Church-initiated fear no longer has the impact it used to I find this “you won’t get holy communion” bullshit so stupid.
Besides the fact that people are no longer afraid to question their religion, more people now than ever realise that religion isn’t defined by how many times you go to mass and how many times you eat a piece of blessed bread.
Frankly the fire and brimstone would work better.
Are the SNP anti-choice? Nope. So what exactly is the Catholic Church playing at in Scotland? And why to the SNP just kind of acqueisce in it? It’s highly dodgy stuff. For all Anglicanism’s faults, it just makes me glad I flew the coop to the Church of Ireland years ago.
Astounding that anyone would wish to listen to the RC church burblings given their appalling lack of moral fibre concerning their own priests.
Apparently it’s fair game to abuse children but not to allow women the choice of producing them.
This nonsense should be roundly ignored.
If all were atheist would these comments be wrong or right within the context of his job remit?
Priest tries to encourage morals shocker!
Is this the same Catholic Church that allowed Franco, Pinochet and Salazar to be buried with full rites?
Pointless whataboutery. Baby Doc is entitled to hold whatever private views he likes. The problem is that he stated these views publicly and they directly contradict his role and his ministerial oath.
The problem isn’t his views, as abhorrent as they are, the problem is that they call into question his ability to do his job. In the case of the Cardinal, that is his job.
Encourage or enforce smcgiff?
Will the excommunicaton of Mexican politicians have any effect and is it right that threats should be made to politicians?
‘Encourage or enforce smcgiff?’
There’s a difference? Remember the priest will think you’re going to hell fire, forced to listen to Daniel O’Donnell music etc for all eternity if you don’t follow his church’s thinking, so is obligated to try to stop this from happening. Therefore threats to politicians doesn’t even register considering.
today is interesting, because we see both a priest and a politician moralising. Personally I’ll happily ignore both and make up my own mind.
There’s a difference?
Of course – I can quite properly advise you but I cannot threaten you.
After all, as we have discussed, the politician is acting on behalf of all his constituents – How can a catholic politician represent his protestant and atheist constituents if he as an individual, not as an MP, is being strong-armed ?
How would we feel if when MPs were voting on Banking matters their banks contacted them and said vote against these reforms or we’ll bankrupt you ?
Is it legal to issue threats to politicians to influence their voting?
“the Church may exclude Roman Catholic politicians from Communion if they vote for pro-abortion measures.â€
There was a time when they would pull out the excommunication stick, or a good old fashioned inquisition before that.
The snap of the Universal Church is weakening as it fades into oblivion.
The Real Ian Paisley and Democratic Unionist Party
Ian Paisley has made a name for himself as one of the most bigoted and controversial people to emerge in the Six Counties of Ireland. For decades he has preached the bible of hate and yet today he is the leader of the DUP, the largest party in the Occupied Six Counties.
The Good Reverend
In 1956, Rev. Paisley abducted a 16-year-old girl, Maura Lyons, who was in a dispute with her parents about joining the Free Presbyterian Church. He attempted to use her as an anti-Catholic propaganda stunt and would not inform police where she was. Paisley was later ordered in court never to go near the girl or her family again.
In 1959, the Presbyterian Moderator of Ireland was on tour of churches and visited a Catholic priest, the Rev. J. Wilson, whom he had befriended. Rev. Paisley described this act of human friendship as an act of “blasphemy”.
On June 17, 1959, at a Belfast rally, he publicly chastised “the men of the Shankill for allowing papists, pope’s men, and papishers” to live on the Shankill Rd. Angry crowds went to the addresses called out by Paisley, burned out the occupants and looted their homes.
He called Pope John XXIII a “Roman anti-Christ” and his Church the “Harlot of Babylon”. On June 3, when the Pope died, Paisley roared, “This romish man of sin is now in hell.”
Paisley, the DUP & Para-militarism
Ian Paisley rants and raves about, in his words, Sinn Féin/IRA however people should look a bit closer to the big man himself when they listen to his words. Ian Paisley has founded, supported and acted as a Paramilitary leader several times in the last 40 to 50 years.
The jewel in Paisleys paramilitary career has to be the foundation of Ulster Resistance on November 10th 1986. His fellow founding members are none other than Peter Robinson and Ivan Foster. To make sure this is clear – the current leader and deputy leader of the DUP helped to found Ulster Resistance. Their aim was to bring down the Anglo-Irish Agreement and throughout the north Ulster Resistance was split into 9 battalions. Ian Paisley has been photographed in the traditional red beret and he was very proud of himself sitting up in Ulster Hall indeed. In 1988 a former DUP election candidate was arrested after an arms find in County Armagh which sent the DUP public relations officer into full flow declaring all links with Ulster Resistance ended in 1987. Two conclusions must be drawn from this, the first being the DUP have acknowledged they were linked to Ulster Resistance and secondly why do people believe the DUP when they say the links were broken in 1987? The British Government has turned a blind eye to Paisley’s involvement in Ulster Resistance. In April 1987 two members of Ulster Resistance were arrested in France attempting to procure weapons from a South African diplomat, was this before or after links were supposedly broken off? Paisleys private militia, Ulster Resistance has yet to decommission its arsenal. The DUP and Ian Paisley have run away and hid from this issue for too long and it is time both communities, both Governments and all parties pushed Ian Paisley on it.
Ian Paisley has also threatened violence on several occasions during his career. His speeches have incited sectarian hatred and he has been at the head of mobs to rid Catholics from their homes. In 1981 he appeared on a hillside with over 500 men brandishing firearms licences.
William Beattie, a loyal lieutenant of Rev. Paisley, addressed a DUP Youth Group after the Anglo-Irish Accord was signed by the Dublin and London governments in 1986: “We must hire assassins to kill Catholics and pay them when the job is done.”
Paisley in his own words
After a Loyalist rally in 1968 – “I will kill all who get in my wayâ€
After Terence O’Neill held a meeting with Sean Lemass, Paisley shouted “No mass, No Lemassâ€
After a Loyalist rally in 1968, Ian Paisely justified his violent anti-Catholic pleas by saying, “Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners; and the massive discrimination in employment and shortage of houses for Catholics were simply because they breed like “rabbits” and multiply like “vermin”.
In reference to the Unionist party’s Jewish candidate, Harold Smith, he said, “The Unionist party are boasting he [Harold Smith] is a Jew. As a Jew, he rejects our Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament, Protestant principles, the Glorious Reformation and the sanctity of the Lord’s day. The Protestant throne and the Protestant constitution are nothing to him.”
In a debate with Bernadette Devlin in 1968 he responded to her accusations of his unfair assumptions by saying he, “would rather be British than be fair.”
During a visit from the Pope, Ian Paisley yelled “I denounce you. Anti-Christ” several times at the European Parliament. The whole affair can be heard online at the following web address, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=6842
June 1959. A rally at the corner of Percy Street and the lower Shankill Ian Paisley ranted, “You people of the Shankill Road, what’s wrong with you? Number 425 Shankill Road – do you know who lives there? Pope’s men, that’s who! Fortes ice cream shop, Italian Papists on the Shankill Road! How about 56 Aden Street? For 97 years a Protestant lived in that house and now there’s a Papisher in it. Crimea Street, number 38! Twenty five years that house has been up, 24 years a Protestant lived there but there’s a Papisher there now.”
In reference to the Unionist party’s Jewish candidate, Harold Smith, he said, “The Unionist party are boasting he [Harold Smith] is a Jew. As a Jew, he rejects our Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament, Protestant principles, the Glorious Reformation and the sanctity of the Lord’s day. The Protestant throne and the Protestant constitution are nothing to him.â€
This was actually from one of his wife Eileen’s election leaflets, at least according to Ed Moloney & Andy Pollak’s Paisley biog. I understand she now sits in the House Of Lords.
Truth,
And your point is? Ball/man? Relevance?
Why do you all not address the real question – why does the Catholic Church threaten excommunication for abortionists yet refuse to do to those of the IRA who blow to pieces innocent Protestants? When was the last time the BBC asked a priest this question?
Talk about selective hypocrisy!
So ripping a child to pieces in the womb of a mother is called civilization?
Priest tries to encourage morals shocker!
No, it’s Archbishop directly interferes in election shocker, Seamus. It couldn’t happen in Ireland these days, thankfully, but it’s pretty disgraceful stuff. What’s worse is that the SNP are happily acquiescing in all this. I thought their people were made of better stuff.
Seems more like the Catholic Church kicking and thrashing on it’s way out. Christianity is dying out and fading into irrelevancy, and not before time. The Church should get it’s own house in order before it starts dictating to others.
And what’s wrong with an Archbishop reminding Catholics about Catholic teachings? Calling it election interference is just hyperbole.
And don’t worry Sam, the IRA terrorist who blows up innocent Protestants is still guilty of a mortal sin, and any time he received communion while still in a state of mortal sin he’s committing another one. So unless he repents, he gets to see all the fire and brimstone he could possibly wish for.
Maggot, a catholic politician can represent everyone in his constituency. If he was honest about his beliefs before being elected, then the atheists, protestants, jedis etc. can’t complain if he votes according to his conscience.
And what’s wrong with an Archbishop reminding Catholics about Catholic teachings? Calling it election interference is just hyperbole.
Not calling it ecclesiastical interference is just denial. Thankfully it’s likely to backfire these days.
The church aint what she used to be in Scotland, but she still packs a mighty punch. For too long we have been coasting along with only small outcries against the increasing abortion rates. With the Church speaking out, hopefully it will act as a focus for opposition, a place to rally if you will for all that believe abortion is wrong regardless of religion or none.
The Church has been leading up to this kind of effort for a while, beginning with the late great Cardinal Winning. Let’s hope O’brien is made of similar stuff.
Let’s be honest now. Far, far, far to many just use abortion as another form of contraception. This is morally abhorrent.
If it’s interference then nobody should be allowed to advise anyone to vote for anyone.
Catholic teaching is clear – abortion is wrong, voting for it is wrong, and voting for someone who would vote for it because they would vote for it is also wrong. The cardinal is merely reminding his flock.
It’s not like he’s sending the albino monks to the polling stations to make sure that people vote correctly.
Speaking of faith, where is the post on Nigel Worthington’s impending appointment as Northern Ireland manager?
Ziznivy
Waiting for confirmation rather than speculation
To be a Catholic one must respect and obey the Canon Law and the Churches teachings on everything. The Popes judgements on life and law are infallible. If one does not adhere to such laws and beliefs then one will be excommunicated. There are no half measures. Therefore, as most people in Ireland today no longer strigently believe in such hocus pocus they are not Catholics…… and isn’t it great that we are no longer fettered by the religious mumbo jumbo yoke.
I doubt very much if people were ever fully aware of Catholic Canon Law; they just went along with the flock.
One can be humanitarian decisions without religion.
One can make humanitarian decisions without religion.
Which is one of the nice quirks about Scottish a politics, the big pro-choice, pro-union Labour party Labour get’s a big chunk of it’s core vote from Catholics in West of Scotland, that is it’s power base. Go figure.
Must be an awful lot of people being ex-communicated.
Does the Catholic church ex-communicate families that have had an abortion? or would that cull the numbers too much?
Scotland has a long tradition of opposing church and state interfering with one another,to the extent we even have laws to prevent it.Cardinal Keith O’Brien is entitled to his opinion but he has no right to try and impose catholic values on our whole state or to use the church to interfere in the civil state,which represents all the people in this country not just catholics ! Church and State should always remain separate !
>>Church and State should always remain separate !<<
I completely agree. However we have had a situation for many years where abortion (especially amongst the young) is growing and no-one is speaking out against this. I think the Church could be used as a focal point to rally those of all religions and none to provide a coherent opposition to this infamy.
The Church is quite correct to point out that those who are complicit in voting for abortion shouldn’t be taking communion. I personally don’t take communion for entirely separate reasons.
Abortion is wrong and anyone who agrees with it as a quick fix is wrong too!!
People cannot call themselves Catholics if they agree with the killing of an unborn child or anyone!!
Not all Catholics murdered for the cause so labelling them as murderers as wrong and has been done on a number of occasions by those who do not have the same faith.
There was a petition for prolife in my church recently and I was told by one girl who was asking for signatures that I would have been surprised who wouldnt sign.
I was disgusted at this and see more and more people eating the altar rails who are hypocrites!!
Roll on the day when only those who are practising their faith as it is supposed to be practised can have the joy of receiving the sacraments. I am sorry but I do not think that those who chose to take away the choice of life of an unborn child to save face or to let them get on with their lives should be allowed to get away with it when they pretend to repent! And any politicians who say they are Catholics but support abortion do not deserve anyone’s vote!!
PS The Catholic church does not support abuse – they have had to suffer it and deal with it – there are bad apples in every bunch!!
I believe in a womans right to choose, within reason. As pointed out young couples have used abortion as a form of contraception. However there are times when an abortion is the best way, such as if having the child will threaten the mothers life, if the woman as been the victim of a rape etc.
BOM: ‘The Catholic church does not support abuse – they have had to suffer it and deal with it – there are bad apples in every bunch!!’
An extremely naive view BOM if I may say so. A few ‘bad apples’ are indeed understandable, but the unremitting litany of clerical abuse pervades virtually every news bulletin.
But the real clincher is not the staggering numbers of abusive clergy, but the way the church dealt with it. Denial, lies and moving abusers to other parishes is about as low and immoral as any organisation can stoop. Even now the RC church have put nothing like enough safeguards into place and continue to show breath-taking arrogance. Don’t let anyone tell you that this is a moral organisation.
They are in no position to lecture anyone on anything.
As regards the abortion debate, the only sane option is the middle way. A complete ban on abortion as demonstrated in Ireland merely leads to exporting the problem to British clinics. Further draconian measures will lead to back-street abortions and suicides.
Abortion needs to be available in certain circumstances — rape, incest, severe handicap and in cases where women sincerely wish to terminate a pregnancy for their own reasons.
The overwhelming majority of abortions are not taken lightly by the women involved and hysterical outbursts from male-dominated religions certainly aren’t going to improve matters.
‘Roll on the day when only those who are practising their faith as it is supposed to be practised can have the joy of receiving the sacraments.’
On this issue I would agree BOM. The number of Catholics who pay mere lip service to the church is growing steadily and there really is little point in belonging to any organisation if you don’t respect it’s rules, however archaic, sexist, homophobic or illogical they may be.
Entirely reasonable and to be expected and encouraged.
if you are a Catholic its teachings must instruct all your decisions. you cannot separate yourself. You do not be a catholic at sunday mass and then be something else the rest of the week.
The last time I checked membership of the Roman Catholic church was entirely voluntary, no one is forced to be a member and if you disagree with its teaching you are absolutely entitled to leave and find a church that conforms to your beliefs. This situation is not new believe it or not, it’s being going on for a while now and those who choose not to follow the teachings of the RC faith are actually quite numerous, they’re called protestants.
But here’s the thing if you choose to remain in communion with the church of Rome then their regional managers wish to remind you of certain basic rules.
It’s a free country folks, you join the army you wear the boots, you wanna be a Catholic well listen to your Cardinal, what’s all the fuss about?
Seems sensible Harry !!!
[i]“The Popes judgements on life and law are infallible.”[/i]
Wrong! The infallibility of Papal pronouncements is very strictly limited and there has been only ONE Papal infallible statement in the 130+ years since the doctrine was defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870 or so.
Papal judgemnts as expressed in encyclicals and such like public statments are NOT infallible. The obligation of Catholics is to listen, but then make their own judgements because, according to the Second Vatican Council and long-standing Catholic doctrine, individual conscience guided by such teachings and one’s own belief/opinion is the final arbiter of sinfulness for the individual.
Here in the US where the federal courts have made abortion legal under almost any circumstances, many of those who fought the issue up to the US Supreme Court in “Roe v Wade”, including the anonymous Roe have called for some limitations on “abortion on demand”.
BUT, when it comes to matters of individual conscience, the honestly and carefully thought out decision of the individual trumps Papal statments.
Great to hear that a Cardinal has spoken up for the Unborn Children. If you dont want to be a Catholic then dont, if you do then abide by Gods laws and desist from murdering the unborn. Is it to much to ask?
These comments along with those of the Pope and Bishops worldwide against the atrocity of abortion should make our so called catholic politicians sit up and think.
There is a definate backlash against abortion. In England last week a woman was convicted of Child Destruction (illegal abortion). In a parallel situation here a midwife is currently being inestigated by the police for her admitted involvement in illegal abortions……
I pray that these crimes will stop and our children can be safe.
“However there are times when an abortion is the best way, such as if having the child will threaten the mothers life, if the woman as been the victim of a rape etc.â€
Pounder,. when do you believe “life†begins? At what point do the rights of an individual come in to effect? At birth? 1 week before the birth? 15 weeks after conception? At conception? And though I direct these questions to you, I think they are more general. Does one person have the right to decide whether another person lives or dies? If so, how would such a person “obtain†that right? I find the “best way†justification for abortion very worrying in deed.
BOM: ‘The Catholic church does not support abuse – they have had to suffer it and deal with it – there are bad apples in every bunch!!’
GLS: “An extremely naive view BOM if I may say so.â€
It is acknowledged that pedophiles are not “stupid†people. They are often clever and chillingly calculating people who search for ways that will allow them to target their victims; in this respect, the Church was targeted. I agree that the denial, the moving around of priest was wrong and I also agree that the Church could and should have done much more and more quickly but it is wrong to infer or insinuate that it (i.e. “The Churchâ€) set out to orchestrate the heinous behaviour within it’s ranks. Let’s not forget, “The Church†is the people. All Catholics are not pedophiles by association and nor are all priests.
Harry F.:”This situation is not new believe it or not, it’s being going on for a while now and those who choose not to follow the teachings of the RC faith are actually quite numerous, they’re called protestants.”
I think you’ll find that all protestant churches are anti-abortion too. In fact, they are the ones leading the charge against abortion in the USA. So if you are pro-choice, Christianity is a dead-duck religion for you.
‘but it is wrong to infer or insinuate that it (i.e. “The Churchâ€) set out to orchestrate the heinous behaviour within it’s ranks.’
I never suggested this Justin.
However what actually occurred was a perfect example of the famous saying; ‘evil can only triumph if good men do nothing.’
Firstly there was obviously little or no vetting of priests’ backgrounds prior to their appointments.
Secondly, when children and parents voiced concerns they were fobbed off or lied to. At this point a full investigation should have taken place of the individual concerned. Instead they were moved to another parish to abuse other children.
There are only two possible explanations for this behaviour — arrogance or deliberate deception. I suspect a mixture of both. The RC church had arrived at a position where they considered themselves literally infallible. Their grip on society was no less than a dictatorship. No-one in the media dared to publish or broadcast allegations, no-one in the church dared to speak out publicly.
The correct course for any organisation to take would be an initial internal investigation, then liason with local police accompanied by a full dosier of evidence and relevant facts.
This would not only have been the correct thing to do, it would have been the moral thing to do.
By failing to even approach this basic standard of behaviour in not one, but thousands of cases, the RC church entirely negate any authority they may have had to moralise on any issue, particularly sexual ones.
‘At what point do the rights of an individual come in to effect? At birth? 1 week before the birth?’
It may be a moot point but if men were the sex who gave birth, I have absolutely no doubt that abortion would be a routine procedure worldwide.
Thanks to the scientific community which the churches take so much pride in castigating, premature babies can survive at much earlier terms than even a few decades ago. However very early term babies still stand no realistic chance of survival and if the woman / girl sincerely wishes to terminate at this early stage, there should be no objection.
The recent RC argument that abortion is equivalent to ‘two Dunblanes a day’ is entirely wrong-headed. Would the good bishop prefer to see dozens of unwanted children born to young teenagers and rape victims or see dozens of grossly handicapped children with no quality of life?
Religious belief is for the individual — it is not for the individual to impose on others.
‘So if you are pro-choice, Christianity is a dead-duck religion for you.’
Interesting point DK. Perhaps you can show us the parts of the bible where abortion is condemned. Did Jesus mention it? Is it mentioned in the Old Testament where everything from shellfish to associating with a menstruating woman is condemned?
Could it perhaps be that the abortion issue, as with contraception, is a ‘bolt-on’ issue added after the Christian holy book was completed? In other words, a ‘man-made’ extra.
Like it or not, abortion under certain circumstances, as with homosexuality between consenting adults, is legal in this and most other western countries. Therefore if as a consequence of your religion, you feel that these practices are not for you, then don’t do them. Otherwise let the rest of us get on.
“Is it mentioned in the Old Testament?”
Yup it’s mentioned very early on Exodus 20:1-17, I think you’ll find it comes in at number six in the list of the ten basic rules, check them out.
As I mentioned earlier if you’re not a practicing Christian you’ve nothing to worry about, so just ignore the Cardinal if you don’t like what he says.
I think we should all step back for a moment’s reflection on the truly staggering aspect of this thread….
Bob McGowan has posted without ONCE mentioning the number of people killed by the vast Proddie-Unionist-Brit conspiracy……
We must be living in the Last Days
It is ironic that SF support the murder of Catholics – in the womb!
It is odd that we are told that Scotland has a declining population and needs to import thousands of immigrants to compensate and on the other that it is a necessity to bludgen to pieces thousands of babies in great agony to them.
Yes, we really have progressed well since the Canaanites burned their children to their gods Molech and Ashtaroth. What a wonderfully progressive civilisation we now have. Thanks liberals.
”Yes, we really have progressed well since the Canaanites burned their children to their gods Molech and Ashtaroth. What a wonderfully progressive civilisation we now have. Thanks liberals.”
This is hilarious stuff!
[i]“Bob McGowan has posted without ONCE mentioning the number of people killed by the vast Proddie-Unionist-Brit conspiracy…… “[/i]
Oh, I see you’ve read and digested the facts of what I posted. And yet, you continue to post your nonsense about the “thousands” murdered by the PIRA.
It’s a lie, of course, BUT……..
None so blind as those who will not see.
Harry:
“Is it mentioned in the Old Testament?â€
Yup it’s mentioned very early on Exodus 20:1-17, I think you’ll find it comes in at number six in the list of the ten basic rules, check them out.
Can’t you find a vaguer reference Harry?
‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ can be applied against the death penalty, suicide, participation in war, self defence and even murdering fluffy little lambs. As with most holy book references, it can fit neatly into anyone’s chosen prejudice.
There is no mention whatsoever in the bible of abortion, despite the fact that it is an ancient practice.
‘if you’re not a practicing Christian you’ve nothing to worry about, so just ignore the Cardinal if you don’t like what he says.’
Fair enough Harry but if he’s trying to interfere with the political process then it’s a bit difficult to ignore.
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
GLC, I accept your point of evil occurring “if good men do nothing’ but with regards to the non-vetting of priests’ backgrounds, I suspect that few organizations, of any kind, were doing that during the 50s, 60s or 70s.
I am not attempting to defend the indefensible here. The closed-door approach to sorting out problems, a head-in-the-sand view of the problem at large and yes, a considerable degree of arrogance was wrong but it was not restricted to the RC Church. Other religions and organizations were targeted specifically because of the ease by which such people could come in to contact with children without any suspicion of their true motives.
â€The correct course for any organisation to take would be an initial internal investigation, then liason with local police accompanied by a full dosier of evidence and relevant facts.â€
Of course we say that now but society was a very different place in the 50s/60s/70s to what it is now. Hindsight is a great thing.
â€By failing to even approach this basic standard of behaviour in not one, but thousands of cases, the RC church entirely negate any authority they may have had to moralise on any issue, particularly sexual ones.â€
Wrong. The player who commits the fowl receives the red card, not the whole team. In this respect, players stand alone as individuals, accountable for their own actions. Are we to castigate all teachers because of those who abused their authority? Do all of the various youth movements need to be stopped? Of course not. The inaction of those in authority should not be seen as a rewriting of what the RC Church is.
â€â€¦if the woman / girl sincerely wishes to terminate at this early stage, there should be no objection….â€
So I’ll ask again, at what point do the rights of an individual come in to effect? All men are born equal ipso facto, abortion is wrong.
â€Would the good bishop prefer to see dozens of unwanted children born to young teenagers and rape victims or see dozens of grossly handicapped children with no quality of life? “
It is a very chilling argument to suggest a person is better dead than born unwanted, better dead than handicapped or better dead than not know your father. “Lifeâ€, in these circumstances, is only valued as a commodity where an individual with a God complex, makes a judgment based on their “prediction†of another’s likely life choices.
†it is not for the individual to impose on othersâ€
Which “individual†are you referring to?
As has already been suggested, if you don’t play for that team you are at liberty to ignore what the manager says! However, organised religions deal with how like-minded people choose to live their lives and as there are many who share the views of the RC Church, the bishop is right and has a right to speak to them.
Sniping at organized religions is of little benefit to any discussion and, IMO, misguided. Similarly, if people of faith were to retort with equally cutting jibes at supporters of relativism, no good would come of it. This one-size-fits-all mentality has given us a society where arrogance rules and notions of “right†and “wrong†are entirely fluid.
All men are born equal ipso facto, abortion is wrong.
**Fair enough Harry but if he’s trying to interfere with the political process then it’s a bit difficult to ignore.**
Does this apply only to Roman Catholic cardinals?
If OutRage! or the Countryside Alliance or the CBI or the TUC or the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors give advice to their members on a particular political issue are we going to get all hot and bothered about their comments as if somehow they’re a threat to democracy?