On the heels of the implementation of a new abortion law in Spain that declares abortion as a right, allows unrestricted abortions performed during the first fourteen weeks of a pregnancy, and lowers the age of required parental consent for abortion to fifteen, Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín of Burgos has published a statement urging Spanish Catholics to civil disobedience of the law:
Let us diagnose it with total clarity: this law is no law, although it is presented as such by some political and legislative bodies. And it isn’t because no one has the right to eliminate an innocent. For that reason, it doesn’t obligate. Even more, it demands a head-on opposition without reservation. Right reason cannot admit as a right the killing of an innocent person. . . . It is a fallacy to affirm that this law has been approved by the majority of the Parliament and that this represents the majority of the citizens, or to say that if the Constitutional Tribunal decrees its conformity [with the Constitution] it would be disobedience to oppose it, and would deserve a punishment. The fallacy consists in attributing to politicians, judges, or citizens a right that they don’t have, and no one has the right to legislate that an innocent can be killed.
It’s not clear to me why any Spanish Catholics would find themselves in the position of having to disobey the law. From what I have read, the law does not explicitly require doctors to perform abortions—though it does set the stage for a clash between the right of conscientious objectors and the newly found right to an abortion. The archbishop’s words do seem to reflect, as John Allen wrote a few weeks ago, the Church’s growing perception of herself as a minority. Recounting recent events, Allen noted:
The police raids in Belgium, the refusal by the Supreme Court in the United States to block a sex abuse lawsuit against the Vatican, and the European Court of Human Rights challenge to display of Catholic symbols in Italy all suggest that the final pillars of deference by civil authorities to the Catholic church are crumbling. . . . A growing band of Catholic opinion, certainly reflected in the Vatican, believes that a ‘tipping point’ has been reached in the West, in which secular neutrality toward the church, especially in Europe, has shaded off into hostility and, sometimes, outright persecution.
July 15th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
Lets hear the bishop talk about the right to justice and repair for clergy sexual abuse survivors. The credibility of Catholic clergy and their ability and perceived right to dictate to us how we should deal with our lives is shot to pieces.
Advice from those who protected child abusers. Regardless of their machinations, logic and purported ideals is still advice from those who protected pedophiles and covered up the sexual abuses of children and continue to this day to deny the right to justice for those harmed.
Advice from those who protected child abusers is the Catholic way – leave them out of the discussion on child safety and social reforms and incentives as they have no genuine desire to protect children, provide justice or to permit any other ideals than those these socially devoid men require to maintain their power crazed hold on the confused minds of their religious serfs.
Society will move forward faster and much safer without the babbling of child endangering fools.
July 15th, 2010 | 9:46 pm
John, gross generalizations are not the way for society to “move forward,” either. Like any other human organization, the Catholic Church has some bad elements, but it has much good in it, too. These good elements have been working hard to counteract the damage done by the abuse and the cover ups, but it seems that nothing is ever enough for people like you.
The faithful Catholic bishops and priests, religious and laypeople (that is, the majority of them) will continue to promote justice and mercy, just as they have done for centuries, ever since they first established the rule of law and the idea of true gentility in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. Try to take a long view of history, and think about what will replace God. Will it be the ego? the state? technology?
July 16th, 2010 | 1:07 am
“Advice from those who protected child abusers is the Catholic way – leave them out of the discussion on child safety and social reforms and incentives as they have no genuine desire to protect children, provide justice or to permit any other ideals than those these socially devoid men require to maintain their power crazed hold on the confused minds of their religious serfs.”
Oh please. The victims of sexual abuse are a mere pretext; a battering ram in the hands of a determined enemy. Notice how there is little on the need for secular authorities to combat sex abuse in their own backyards (public schools, etc.). They don’t care about the victims unless they are conveniently Catholic.
The Church’s biggest mistake in this regard was providing the enemy with that weapon.
(BTW, considering that sexual abuse is much more prolific in public schools and public institutions, are you willing to exclude the US government out of any rights and sex abuse discussions?)
July 16th, 2010 | 6:31 am
Dr. John M. Haas wrote (in 1990): “The priests are those who conspicuously manifest Christ in our midst. … They wear some external mark of who they are so that they are recognized by friend and foe alike … as priests of God. … Thus, when they fail the sacred trust, when they betray their sacral character as a total offering to God, the price exacted is often excruciating, not only for the priest but for the faithful as well.” We – all faithful priests and laity – are now paying the “excruciating” price. The burden is so heavy, not only within the Church but, alas, without; so many have “gone away sad”, those who, absent this horror, might have remained. Dr. Haas also wrote: “Just as the failings of a priest can weaken the entire Body of Christ, so too can his virtue strengthen it.” That, together with our own penance and prayer, is our hope.
July 16th, 2010 | 11:44 am
JohnB:
I find it hard to believe that the
“Those in authority have done awful things that hurt children, therefore I am justified in advocating and supporting the destruction of unborn children.”
argument would come from an adult.
GR
July 17th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
Let us diagnose it with total clarity: this law is no law, although it is presented as such by some political and legislative bodies.
This is a great sentence, one that cuts to the heart of the issue, one that underlines the difference between Law and mere legislation.
I wish that American clerics (from all Churches) regularly spoke with this combination of conviction, simplicity, and philosophical rigor.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact