This is a bumper sticker I see around St. Louis quite often, usually on the back of a pick-up truck or mini-van driven by a man. Aside: Most anti-abortion bumper stickers I see are on vehicles driven by men or older woman. "Sure, easy for you to say," I always think.
But you can absolutely be both pro-choice and Catholic. The only reason this is a point of contention is that Catholics have been confusing religion with the law since the early days of the Church.
Here's how to be both at once:
- Never, ever, under any circumstances, choose to have an abortion, even if it kills you.
- Actively work from within to change the church's position on legislating the issue.
- Aggressively work to improve women's choices so that fewer feel that they have to choose abortion.
See, it's pretty simple.
As I wrote in the comments to this post, a leading evangelical Calvinist Christian theologian, Richard J. Mouw, recently wrote:
[T]his does not mean I want to impose "Christian culture" on everyone. God desires that people freely acknowledge [God's] rule and that they freely offer their lives of obedience to [God]. Nothing is gained when we impose specifically Christian standards on people who do not acknowledge God as the ruler over all things.
There will always be conflicts between what our religions guide us to believe and what the popular culture around us believes. In these situations, it's the responsibility of religious folk to uphold our religions.
The reason I have never committed adultery is because I believe that it's wrong, not because it's illegal. I don't need a law requiring me to "honor my father and my mother;" I know that it is the right thing to do. If you feel that abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion. Help other women so that they feel less need to choose to do so. But don't legislate your religion onto those who do not share your religious conviction.
This is what I would have posted, if I hadn't missed this year's Blog for Choice Day.
12 comments:
Very well said.
I completely agree, you can be religious, for life, and for choice.
So well put!!
Thank you all!
That was great. I'm sending it to my catholic husband, who incidentally didn't want to hear what I think about the pope on this topic just last night.
Oh, and off topic, but I'm using cloth diapers now thanks to you, you know. Everyone I know who used them said oh they're sooo icky and sooo much work. You were the first to say duh, it's easy! And they are! Yay! I love my fuzzi bunz!
You rock my world, SL.
Thanks, RE!
I hope it helps, Eisbaer! You're better than me with the diapers; I switched to paper around the time Ellie turned 2 and it was a Big Mistake, but it's hard to go back now. I will start all over with cloth with #2, should #2 ever decide to come along.
One of your first statements is misleading, you say "Never, ever, under any circumstances, choose to have an abortion, even if it kills you." Smudging the issue of the rule of Double Effect, if you undertake an action whose aim it is to save the mother's life but may result in the death of thefoetus it is not abortion, so is licit.
Also, if the Church were to "change" (the very idea shows a lot about one's view of morality) its position on abortion it would be going against the revealed will of God. The Church does not have the power to change morality, Jesus Christ our Saviour and Lord is the Supreme Head of the Church (which is, by the way, His body).
Ah, another "courageous" Anonymous against choice.
Your first point is debatable. It's quite unclear which circumstances constitute saving a woman's life. Indeed, the whole principle of "double effect" is itself controversial.
Second, I can't imagine what you think my comment about change in the church suggests about my "morality." The Church changes all the time. I've heard tell that Galileo was right after all, you know.
As for the "revealed will of God," I'd be interested to see your biblical references specifically relating to abortion - and not just the usual discussion of murder, if you please.
This is an interesting read: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
While you're looking up your references, you might do a simple comparison. How much of the Bible is devoted to discussion of poverty, hunger, and more subtle examples of charity? How much of the Bible is devoted to discussion of abortion? Is your activism proportionate? Do you believe that you have a better idea of what's more important to God than what is revealed in the Bible?
Wow! You are brilliant!
But, in spite of your brilliance your last comment is pretty lackluster...
When did the Church say that Galileo was right about morality? (Never is the answer, BTW.)
For Catholics, the will of God is revealed in more places than the Bible. (You might want to do a little research on the morality of the early Church.)
Just because the Bible doesn't often address the issue of torture doesn't mean that it is not a very important issue! Would your argument work against people impassioned against the holocaust of WWII? Could you tell them, "Look, poverty is much more important in the Bible, so..."
What makes the Catholic Church different from other institutions is that it doesn't change its teachings at the whim of popular culture. A good example of a 'church' that does is the Episcopal Church USA. And, if you like them, then there's not much I can do for you...
Ah, Anonymous is back. No braver, but back nonetheless.
The Catholic Church does evolve its positions, and has done so many times throughout its long history. Whether or not you believe that those changes are about "morality" is a personal decision, I suppose. But I can't imagine how large parts of Vatican II wouldn't be considered to be about morality.
I do respect the Episcopal Church, very much so, in fact. And if you can't even appreciate the right of a very devoutly religious people to call themselves a church, then indeed I can't imagine that we have much to discuss. Your profound lack of respect for others shuts down dialogue quite effectively.
You see, I'm interested in looking at issues critically, not being a blanket apologist. You can split hairs and redirect rhetoric all you want; you're still ignoring the issues that are most convenient to ignore, while focusing on the issues you choose to focus on. In the end, that's what most religions do.
I have suggested that we examine how well our activism matches proportionately with what we learn from the Teacher. Gospels are chock full of suggestions about how to treat people - I would argue that they do indeed cover torture and murder - and not so full of suggestions about how to legislate Christian morality onto any society.
1) You don't need to have a Blogger account (or a blog) to sign your name to your comments. And, yes, criticizing anonymously is cowardly.
2) Many, many Episcopalians are deeply religious. Yet you referred to them as a 'church,' with the apostrophes implying that they are not, in fact, an actual church.
Later in this section, you seem to be implying that I am not religious. If you read along a bit further, you'll see that this is far from the truth.
3) You seem to assume that everything the Catholic Church believes is the same as it ever has (interpreted very broadly) and that every major world religion similarly agrees that "abortion is murder."
You're far from the truth on both points.
1) A significant majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal, and a quick Google search should provide you with extremely reputable, unbiased polls to this effect.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
2)
Not all Christians, or even all Catholics, are against the continued legal status of abortion:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
http://www.rcrc.org/
In fact, some polls indicate that the majority of Catholic women of childbearing age support abortion rights.
Similarly, there is no single Buddhist view on abortion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/relig_buddhism1.shtml
Or Hindu: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1985/09/1985-09-07.shtml
Or Islamic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/relig_islam1.shtml
And the Mormons would take great exception to you separating them out from Christianity.
My "problem" is with individuals from a minority group trying to legislate their beliefs onto the majority.
As for world death rates, it's interesting to note that US women have the highest perinatal mortality rates of any developed nation. This isn't explicitly about abortion (though the risks might influence some women to choose abortion here) but is certainly an interesting discussion, one I've had on this blog before and will no doubt revisit in the future.
With regard to abortion specifically:
http://www.irinnews.org/print.asp?ReportID=30617
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/globaldispatch/gd-050831-illegal-abortion.xml
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0230.htm (includes and interprets statistics from the WHO)
Ah, Jeff. We're pretty much done here. You feel that you, a man, have the right to decide when and if a woman should carry her pregnancy to term, how individual religions define themselves, and what "society" belives, regardless of what the majority of people in that society believe.
I deny your rights to decide all of these things for me. And that ends the discussion.
Post a Comment