Abortion debate rages in Britain on 40th anniversary of law
Britain passed its law legalising abortion 40 years ago today. But the controversy has not died down. Parliament is again besieged by two camps of activists, one keen to stop what they say is murder and the other defending what they see as a women’s right. Judging it too difficult to have the law overturned, the anti-abortion camp aims to lower the 24-week limit for the termination of pregnancy to 20, 18 or even fewer weeks.
For more, read Kate Kelland’s feature here. We also have a factbox on abortion laws around the world and the story of a boy born at 22 weeks — probably the most premature baby to have survived in Britain — and now thriving.
The factbox shows a wide spectrum of legal positions, with differing rationales producing different conditions, especially on the time limits. Britain is clearly in a minority with its 24-week limit; many other countries set the bar at 12 weeks, with possible exceptions.
Do you think Britain should reduce its 24-week limit?
Wafer wars, wedge issues and the pope’s visit
Remember back in 2004 when some U.S. Catholic bishops declared they would deny communion to the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, because he supported abortion rights? Reporters spied on him in church to see if he received or not. Pundits dreamed up terrible catch phrases like “wafer watch” and “wafer war.” The issue became part of the campaign that year.
Now, four years later, Pope Benedict is visiting the U.S. and three prominent pro-choice politicians — Kerry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani — have stepped up and taken communion at his Masses with a minimum of fuss. Pelosi kissed his ring at the White House as President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looked on. Apart from his pro-choice stand, Giuliani is also twice divorced and remarried, which according to Church rules should bar him from taking communion. When our Vatican correspondent Phil Pullella asked him if he was uncomfortable with that, he said “No.”
As the National Catholic Reporter‘s John Allen observed, “In none of these cases did the politicians receive communion directly from the pope, but it nonetheless happened during a papal Mass, and it took no one by surprise … While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary. The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life.”
What strikes me is how this is not making too many waves in the media. Sure, it’s getting mentioned and there are Catholics who wanted a firm line and blogs that are lamenting the politicians took communion after all. The Daily News did a short piece on it. But this is not causing that much fuss despite the fact it’s taking place during a papal visit and an election year.
What’s going on here? Benedict has made it clear on a few occasions that he doesn’t agree with giving communion to politicians who support abortion rights. Yet this is happening. It looks like there are four possible explanations:
1. Benedict has told the bishops to stay out of politics, so none are raising their voices as they did in 2004.
2. U.S. bishops felt the issue got turned into a political football in 2004 and don’t want that repeated.
Tomorrow is Corpus Christi… having a blessed one? I wonder, what Mexican Bishops feel like who excommunicated catholic politicians for voting pro-abortion. I guess the schism is visible; there are different rules for different countries; the local churches are scoring high with their enculturation of Catholicism. After all, what is the big deal about not receiving Holy Communion at mass if one is in the state of moral sin? This is ranked to a duty for a catholic and in some places for a non catholic, while at mass to receive the Body of Christ. I dare to call it communism of Communion. You made it to mass, wow; God should jump up and down with joy. In one of the European countries people are still taught that you can’t receive the Eucharist if you are in the state of mortal sin. Skipping Sunday mass is used as an example of a mortal sin. This however may not be a Catholic Church anymore.
Move over U.S. Religious Right, here’s the evangelical center
Move over Religious Right: you’re getting squeezed by the evangelical center.
That is one of the central points of a new book by David P. Gushee entitled “The Future of Faith in American Politics”.
To Gushee, the evangelical center combines much of the theology of the Religious Right with the social concerns of the left, give it a broad engagement in many of the pressing issues of our day.
Gushee does not demonise the Religious Right – which he says is simply exercising its citizenship responsibilities in a free society – but he does critique its entanglement with the Republican Party, its hectoring tone and what he sees as its narrow focus on issues like abortion and gay marriage.
But he also takes issue with the left’s silence on or reluctance to act on such issues.
The emerging evangelical center includes activists such as Richard Cizik, vice president for government affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals, and Florida mega-pastor Joel Hunter.
Evangelicals in this vein share the right’s opposition to abortion but also press for action on issues like climate change and global poverty.
“And our rhetoric has been baby-centered rather than centered on all who are in that situation.”
Does that mean parents now need to be more self-centered and and go ahead with killing the baby?”
New book charts fresh course for U.S. Religious Right
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, is well known as one of the leading activists of the Religious Right in the United States. Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr, founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, is one of the most influential voices of the black conservative movement.
The two have come together to chart a future course for conservative Christian political activism in a just published book entitled “Personal Faith, Public Policy”. The issues they discuss include the value of life, poverty and justice and rebuilding the traditional family unit.
They argue that conservative Christians need to speak out more on issues like poverty and racial reconciliation while maintaining their opposition to abortion and gay rights. They say no one political party – i.e., the Republican Party – should assume to command evangelical support unless it delivers the goods and that born-again Christians should also woo Democrats.
They also say that an evangelically inspired third party is a “powerful possibility”. The book is sure to raise some eye-brows. The authors say that “what Jesus warned would occur in the last days are almost identical to what some global warming theorists say is going to happen”, pointing to what they see is the parallel between scientific and Biblical predictions of famines and extreme weather events.
But they adopt the view of secular sceptics of climate change who say economic resources spent on capping carbon emissions would be better spent in areas like poverty alleviation. The authors spoke with Reuters about their book and the future of the Religious Right, whose obituary they say is being prematurely written – and not for the first time.
Q: You say the Religious Right is not dead. How will it change in the next few years?
PERKINS: “It’s growing more diverse and it’s maturing. And it’s becoming more focused on the issues as opposed to the more political or partisan side … ”
Seems like the same old song and dance to me. Not a word about war being wrong. I’m no expert on the Bible, but I don’t recall Jesus being in favor of killing in the name of the (once) almighty dollar. Isn’t anyone else uncomfortable about the random selections from both old and new testaments? Always seems slipshod to me.
Catholics, sex, abortion, libel, a cardinal — what a story…
UPDATE: The trial ended in stalemate on Feb. 29 and a retrial is due in a few months. Murphy-O’Connor was not called to testify.
The British papers are all over the story of the libel suit brought by former spokesman for London’s Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O’Connor against the Daily Mail. The tabloid wrote in 2006 that Austen Ivereigh, 41, had pressured one former girlfriend into having an abortion and wanted another to abort twins she was carrying (she later miscarried). He flatly denies the charges and accuses the Daily Mail of making him lose his job and his reputation. The story broke at a time when Ivereigh was an active Church campaigner against abortion.
The case opened in court on Monday and Ivereigh has been on the stand giving his side of the story. He admitted he did not always live up to Church teaching (on sex before marriage, for example) but strongly denied that he proposed abortion and insisted that he, as a practising Catholic, opposed it.
The story has all the elements for lurid headlines and snap judgments — sex, abortion, the Catholic Church, charges of hypocrisy, “he said/she said” accusations, libel and the link to a “prince of the Church.” The second woman in the case is referred to only as “Madame X.” The cardinal is due to take the stand next week and the press section is sure to be packed. It’s not often that such a senior Catholic prelate gives testimony in court.
The lawyers for both sides came out swinging. Ivereigh’s lawyer told the court that his client was “threatened and baited like an animal” by “journalism at its most personally destructive and vicious.” The lawyer for the Daily Mail told Ivereigh: “You were behaving hypocritically, contrary to the beliefs of your church and in a callous and cruel way to both these women.”
Full disclosure: like many other journalists covering religion in Europe, I dealt with Ivereigh when he worked for the cardinal and found him to be an intelligent and informative spokesman. I have no special insight into this case and have no idea how the court will finally call it.
Catholic univ. basketball coach rapped over abortion, stem cells
The Vatican has been stressing for years that Catholic universities should have a distinctively Catholic character and follow Church doctrine. Pope John Paul II spelled this out in a 1990 document called Ex corde Ecclesiae and Vatican officials have used this to discipline universities that stray too far from Church teaching. Traditionally, rebellious theologians were the ones who caught their eye. In recent years, bioethical issues have emerged as a flashpoint. Universities researching in vitro fertilisation or embryonic stem cells — both of which the Church opposes — have been threatened with withdrawal of their Catholic status unless they stop.
Now the question has come up whether a basketball coach at a Catholic university can be in favour of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Mollie Ziegler at GetReligion has picked up a fascinating story about Saint Louis University’s coach Rick Majerus, who expressed his personal views to a local reporter while attending a Hillary Clinton campaign rally. SLU describes itself as “a Jesuit, Catholic university.” It is not legally controlled by the local Catholic diocese. St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke is one of the most outspoken Catholic prelates in the United States — he said in 2004 he would deny communion to John Kerry because of his pro-abortion views, said the same last year about Rudy Giuliani and has now said it about Majerus. And he says SLU should discipline Majerus.
It’s hard to imagine that Burke will just let this drop because of details such as the lay composition of its board or how the state of Missouri views the university’s status. If this document on Ex corde Ecclesiae by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is any guide, he seems to have a moral responsibility for all Catholic universities in his diocese, whether they officially come under his control or not. What he can do is not clear. The Vatican has ways to exert its influence, especially with the Jesuits. Look at the way it pushed Fr. Tom Reese out of the editor’s chair at America magazine.
Coincidentally, this comes just after the Jesuit order elected a new superior general, Adolfo Nicolas (a Spaniard, like its founder Saint Ignatius). Shortly before the vote, Pope Benedict sent the outgoing superior general a letter recalling the order’s special vow of obedience to the Pope. Vatican Radio said Benedict made a special point of asking “that the Congregation reaffirms, in the spirit of Saint Ignatius, its own total adhesion to Catholic doctrine, in particular on the crucial points under attack today from secular culture”.
This is a story to watch.
It will be interesting to see which religious commitments will win out here.
I fully expect that having a viable athletic program at SLU will turn out to be the more powerful religious value. Athletic entertainment is just about the highest value honored in this country. That is increasingly recognized at state supported and private universities alike.
A Massachusetts Yankee in Pope Benedict’s Court
U.S. ambassadors are often chosen not for their expertise but because of the size of their campaign contributions. For his next envoy to the Vatican, however, President George W. Bush seems to have opted for one of the best qualified Americans he could find. Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon probably knows more people in the Vatican than all of her predecessors combined. She is almost certainly better connected there than any of her future colleagues from the other 175 countries with diplomatic relations with the Holy See. She has a resumé no other diplomat could match, including leading a Vatican delegation to a United Nations conference and advising the Catholic Church on three different pontifical organisations.
The Pittsfield, Massachusetts native still has to be confirmed by the Senate. She would not be the first woman U.S. ambassador to the male bastion that is the Vatican. Corrine “Lindy” Boggs served from 1997 to 2001.
In 1994, Glendon became the first woman to lead a Vatican delegation to an international conference — a role that usually was assigned to clerics, preferrably archbishops. It was the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 (see her account of the conference here). While Pope John Paul’s choice of Glendon for that role raised some eyebrows in the Vatican, it also greatly enhanced her profile as one of the Church’s leading laywomen and academics.Since 2004 she has been president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which advises the Pope on social issues, and also serves on the Pontifical Council for the Laity and the Pontifical Council for the Family. She is the author of numerous books , including “Abortion and Divorce in Western Law.”
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, told the Catholic news agency Zenith that the appointment “will benefit both our country and the Church.”
Amid all the positive comments, a question came to mind among some colleagues who write about the Vatican. Is she too much of an insider? Will she be able to serve both her country and her Church at the same time? The consensus was: if anyone can pull it off, she probably can.
If ratified by the Senate, Glendon will most likely hold her post for only a year. After the 2008 election, the next president, whether Democrat or Republican, would likely appoint someone else, again, as a reward for service rendered in the campaign.
UK abortion debate grows 40 years after first law allowing it
Over at another Reuters blog, Ask… , my London-based colleague Michael Holden has put the spotlight on a growing debate in Britain about the 40-year-old abortion law there. The law has come under increasing fire in recent years from anti-abortion activists, who say medical advances mean a foetus born before the 24-week limit can survive and the limit should therefore be reduced. At the same time, pro-abortion activists want to change the law to make it easier to obtain an abortion by dropping the requirement that two doctors agree to the procedure.
Michael’s post asks:
October 24th, 2007, filed by Michael Holden
The highly charged issue of abortion is once again becoming a hot political issue.
Ever since terminations were legalised in1967, there has been heated debate between those who argue that abortions are morally wrong and those who say it is a woman’s right to choose whether to have a baby.
Then there are the medical issues. Doctors support maintaining the 24-week upper limit for abortions, arguing that is the point at which a foetus is considered viable. However others say scientific advances mean this is no longer the case and this limit should be reduced.
Last year the number of abortions rose by 4 percent and Lord Steel, who brought forward the original Abortion Act as a young MP, has voiced his concern that there are too many terminations nowadays and some women are acting irresponsibly.
“Next time you meet a poor child from a poor neighbourhood, or a physically or mentally disabled person, or a person who has a cleft lip or club foot, or perhaps someone from an ethnic minority where males are more valued than females but were unfortunate to be born female” –
Sure, you could ask them if they are glad to be alive, but where are these people?
The poor, the physically/mentally disabled, the disfigured…..the majority are marginalized in society, living on the edges, unwelcome in regular schools, unwanted in organizations, ignored, abused and ridiculed.
I can’t remember the last time I came across a blind receptionist or was served coffee by a waiter with Downs. I can’t remember the last time I saw an employee in a wheelchair in any organization anywhere……
I do know of the horrendously complex, lengthy and costly battle a Prof undertook to obtain access to the regular school system for his autistic son. He succeeded in defeating the segregation system due to his intellectual/critical thinking abilities and dogged persistence. However, the school system admitted his son – and only his son….. Any parent wanting the same opportunities for their mentally/physically challenged child must fight their own interminable, costly and complex battle.
So – castigate pro-choice folks if you must…..
But as long as the poorest in society are single mothers, and that the home caregivers of the young, the aged, the infirm and the challenged are mostly women who are unpaid, unrecognized, unvalued and unacknowledged and that those they care for remain largely invisible in general society…….. Then thousands of women will continue to view abortion as a responsible solution to unwanted pregnancies.
As simon posted above “( over 97% of abortions in the UK are carried ‘for social reasons’).
…….we should take stock and ask ourselves, and ask what does this really say about our society?”
best,
Siriata
-
Resident FaithWorld Expert
-
Actually, even when it’s nothing to do with whether an abortion could/should be performed, a woman isn’t *always* pregnant in law when you think she is. For example, in English law, you could be undergoing IVF treatment, have had your egg fertilised but not yet had it implanted and therefore technically you would have ‘conceived’ but not yet be ‘pregnant’. So perhaps a woman can, depending on which standpoint you have, be ‘a little bit pregnant’. I’d be most interested to know if this is mirrored in any US state.
However, you’re not really as logical as that are you, Betsy? Anyone who quotes a character from Dr Suess tells the world “I take my views based on the words in children’s books”. Oh dear. That’s actually worse than holding all your views based on the Bible. No wonder you’re a pro-lifer! I hope you don’t take the contraceptive pill, otherwise, if you ever bother to look up how that works, you’ll be very upset…