Cardinal Burke, an official of the Vatican, a foreign sovereign state, is out of order when he threatens Irish politicians if they cast votes of which he disapproves.Catholic politicians who support abortion legislation should be refused Holy Communion, says Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest legal tribunal that rules on canon law.
"There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins,” The American cardinal told the Irish newspaper Catholic Voice in an interview published recently.
Cardinal Burke said that Catholic politicians must support legislations that will "most reduce the evils which attack human life and the integrity of marriage."The legislation, which allows for the termination of a pregnancy when the life of the woman is in danger is in response to the horror story of a pregnant woman who died of blood poisoning in an Irish hospital.
Savita Halappanavar, 31, a dentist who was 17 weeks pregnant, went to the hospital with back pain on October 21.How does allowing Ms Halappanavar to die "reduce the evils which attack human life". Where is compassion in the cardinal's judgement? He says Ms Halappanavar's death was tragic, but, according to the Vatican rules, there was nothing to be done by the doctors but stand by and watch her die. I'm sick and tired of the Vatican's interference in the governance of countries around the world. I hope the politicians in Ireland vote their consciences and put a stop to such barbarous treatment in Irish hospitals.
Her husband Praveen Halappanavar said she was told she was miscarrying, and after one day of severe pain she asked for a medical termination.
But her repeated requests were refused for three days, he said, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they said they were legally unable to perform the abortion.
Mr Halappanavar said his wife was "in agony" the whole time.
Eventually the foetal heartbeat stopped and the foetus was removed. But Ms Halappanavar was by now seriously ill, and was taken to the high dependency unit and then the intensive care unit, where she died of septicaemia (blood poisoning triggered by infection) a week after she first arrived at the hospital.
And if the cardinal thinks so highly of the integrity of marriage, why isn't he married?
The RC attitude of privileging fetal, or even embryonic or zygotic life over the life of the mother, rests on a non-interventionist ethic (which I do understand but feel in this circumstance is rather a parody of that ethical principle). Ultimately the question needs to be seen as one of assisting what is clearly and unambiguously a person in dealing with something that is attacking her, internally. I'm not saying that we should treat the fetus as a mere mass of tissue, but deal with the reality that it is threatening the life of another. It is tragic that there is no non-lethal way of addressing this; and I would say there is an element of tragedy in any abortion --- but surely the situation described in this case multiplied the tragedy rather than diminishing it. One life, it seems to me, is to be preferred to two deaths -- and I don't think that is the cold logic of utilitarianism, but rather common sense.
ReplyDeleteSavita was miscarrying at 17 weeks. The fetus could not survive. My views on abortion are fairly conservative, but the decision to end the pregnancy, though regrettable, would not have been difficult had I been one of the medical staff members. Of course, the staff may or may not have broken the law if they had done so.
DeleteActually, Tobias's point directly undercuts the RC dogma on this point.
DeleteThe Mishnah very clearly states that if the mother's life in danger, one can abort the baby at any time in the pregnancy--all the way through the end of the pregnancy. The limit is when the baby's head emerges from the womb during delivery--that's the point when the baby can be considered an independent person whose life is of equal importance as the mother's. But up to them (in the standard justification for this teaching) the baby is considered (however unware the baby may be) to be attempting to take the mother's life.
Now, if it's in the Mishnah, stated without dispute, that means it was standard Jewish law well before 200 CE--in other words, that was the Jewish standard in the time of Jesus, or well on its way to be accepted as such.
But did Jesus say a word against it? Apparently not....
kishnevi, it's difficult for me to talk about abortion, partly because I never had to make such a choice, so I'll leave it there.
DeleteAs for the law, abortion should be legal, safe, and accessible to all women.
Kishnevi, the Mishnah was at the back of my thoughts. Because "life" is not held to begin until the first breath, M.Oholot 7.6 allows something very close to what we would call "partial birth" abortion, on the grounds of defending the life of the mother. If the head has emerged, "we do not chose between life and life." I wrote a post on this back in 2008, which seems timely to this current discussion.
DeleteThanks for the link, Tobias.
DeleteBecause I find the subject of termination of a pregnancy difficult, I'm careful not to judge decisions women make, but in the two cases referenced in the post and the comments here, an abortion should have been done. The 9 year old girl's life was saved, but Savita's was not.
If only Burke actually were one's drunken, cross-dressing uncle, instead of merely *looking* like it. [Can't comment on the substance of the thread, or will become incoherent w/ RAGE]
ReplyDeleteJCF, if only...
DeleteJust another instance of concern for the unborn over the needs of the born. I would like to see murder charges against anyone who denies an abortion when the mother dies. I don't like abortion but I know firsthand how necessary it can be. People not involved, especially men, need to butt out. They make it more difficult than usual for me to follow Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to have an abortion is personal and difficult enough and should not be made harder by those who have no business being involved.
DeleteOMG, call the fashion police. That's a felony. Although, come to think of it, Queen Elizabeth would kill for that hat. And as for Burke...what a useless sack of, uh, potatoes.
ReplyDeleteYes, the vestments make for a very poor ecclesiastical fashion statement.
DeleteI'm reminded of the nine year old girl in Brazil, who was pregnant from being repeatedly raped by her step-father. She was taken to the hospital by her mother suffering from severe stomach pains. The doctors discovered she was 4 months pregnant with twins and terminated the pregnancies, because the girl's life was in danger. The Roman Catholic leaders excommunicated the mother and the medical staff, but not the step-father, because repeatedly raping a 9 year old is not an excommunicable offense. What skewed morality is in play in these situations.
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing is crap, crap, crap. If men carried the babies, the whole outlook would be completely different, don't you know?
ReplyDeleteI say, get all the women together and let them decide for themselves what to do with abortions. And let no man open his mouth about it, ever.
Russ, I have to agree with you that if men carried babies, we would not be where we are now.
DeleteIt has always been about men's power to control women's bodies, to use them for procreation and pleasure ... marriage is just their church issued license to do so ... thus, the church must make all the rules if they are to maintain their power over the men using women's bodies ... "integrity" and delicate sensibilities about babies are just the cover story for raw power ... this is raw power taken to its extreme that must be defended or the whole "moral authority" claim disintegrates. The men whole rule in dresses are losing the argument in most of the developed world, so they now focus their efforts elsewhere. Maybe that outfit plays better in the Congo ...
DeleteOne reason I find abortion difficult to discuss is that I saw ultrasounds of my 6 grandchildren, one as early as 13 weeks, and the images look very much like babies. I am a visual and emotional person, and the images stay with me, but they do not cause me to want to outlaw abortions.
DeleteI just realized: Burke is the spitting image of my aunt. Or would be, if she had a hat and dress that outrageous.
ReplyDeleteHa ha, kishnevi. How do the people around the cardinal keep a straight face when he wears the vestments? I doubt if I could.
DeleteAnglicans often shop at Almy's and Wippel's. Burke may have gotten hold of an old Martinez and Murphy catalogue, or perhaps Ringling Bros. Or "Lots to Love?"
DeleteI know.... leaving the stage. But something to lighten the mood is surely needed.
In the spirit of lightening the mood ... is the little song in his head, "I feel pretty, I feel pretty and witty and ..."?
DeleteOne reason I chose the picture in the post from my collection of photos of Burke wearing splendiferous vestments was to lighten the mood of the post. The other was to suggest that few people would heed the advice of a person who would wear such an outfit.
DeleteGood post!
ReplyDeleteIronically, Burke talks of protecting “the integrity of marriage.” It is hard to understand how letting wives die advances marriage. Of course, it may increase the number of marriages by creating more widowers looking for companionship.
Thanks, Lionel. Yes, it seems very little consideration was given to either Savitra or her husband.
DeleteWippell's are, in fact, Anglican. The go-to place for your Dearmerite Canterbury cap. Enjoy their online episcopal wear catalogue.
ReplyDeleteThe cope and mitre in the picture are not bad at all, if you like copes and mitres.
Delete