Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Archbishop supports O'Brien on abortion

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 June 2007
THE Archbishop of Cardiff yesterday gave his backing to the head of Catholics in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who last week hit out at politicians who support abortion.
Peter Smith said that Cardinal O'Brien - who described the effect of abortion as "two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on" - was reflecting "the general teaching of the church".

The Archbishop agreed that Catholic politicians
who vote in favour of abortion should remove themselves from receiving Holy Communion.

He suggested he would not personally refuse communion to an MP who voted for abortion, but said the politician involved should not seek it.

"The church's law is quite clear," he said. "A priest or bishop is not permitted to refuse communion unless it is clear the person has been excommunicated or there is a very public rejection of church teaching.

"The pastoral reality is, as the Pope said recently, that if a Catholic politician clearly goes against the church's teaching, they ought to remove themselves from receiving communion, because it would be a cause of great scandal.

"Because the Eucharist is about the unity of the church and fostering that unity, then there is a danger that unity would be very badly broken."

Archbishop Smith rejected the argument that Catholic politicians represent constituents of all faiths and none, and must reflect their opinions when voting on issues like abortion.

"A politician in these circumstances has a real difficulty, which I can appreciate," he said. "But this is a question of a fundamental human right to life - which we all have and on which all other rights are based. If a politician said, 'I must go along with the majority view of my constituents' then he ought to consider his position both as a Catholic and a politician."

Asked whether he agreed with Cardinal O'Brien's comments, he responded: "All the Cardinal was saying was the general teaching of the church on this, that if somebody - whether a politician or anybody else - co-operates with abortion, then in a sense they exclude themselves from receiving communion."

The Archbishop said it would be acceptable for Catholic politicians to vote for a reduction in the maximum period of pregnancy for terminations. Even though this would result in abortion remaining legal, it would be right for Catholics to support legislation to cut the number of terminations, he said.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Michael Leonard,

Edinburgh 03/06/2007 00:19:51

So an archbishop agrees with the cardinal - thereby keeping his promotion prospects gleaming.
What's next?- Pinky agrees with Perky?

2

Angus Lindsay,

Xiang Gang 03/06/2007 00:29:28

A bunch of hypocrites. "The church's law is quite clear" just about says it all. The church's law does not apply to those who are not a part of that organisation. It's all about control by men in frocks and silly hats who bow to superstition.

3

FJM,

UK 03/06/2007 06:42:48

Unfortunately, whenever religion (especially if it is Christianity) is discussed on these forums it represents an opportunity for ignorant counter-culture rabid atheists to vent their bile. The problem is, these people cannot tolerate “dissent” from their point of view. Oh the audacity of a (Christian) religious figure to offer a position, pertaining to Church teaching/law and how this may potentially impact (practicing) members of the Church? It is even more outrageous of him to have the temerity to use the public media? Who does he think he is, a citizen of the UK?

The key point lost in the visceral diatribe that constitutes a response to his comments is that Catholic MP’s should consider withholding themselves from Holy Communion within the Church if they publicly subscribe to a pro-abortion position. The counter-culture atheists will respond by saying, “well this may influence MP’s to hold an unduly pro-life perspective to avoid falling out of favour with their Church, to the detriment of non-Catholic constituents, especially women who want to have an abortion”. This is a gross simplification of the realities of the daily challenges that people with a moral grounding face. Ethics and morality emerges from a philosophical paradigm, it does not drop out of thin air, and people have to deal with these questions on a daily basis – what is “right” and what is “wrong”. The Cardinal was contributing to this discussion from a uniquely Catholic/Christian perspective, advising that practicing Catholics should take into consideration Church teaching in the context of communion, not necessarily actual practice. With regard to actual practice, a separate judgment will eventually be made in the fullness of time.

4

Boy Wonder,

03/06/2007 07:55:39

Jeez, FJM #3. Lighten up willya!

It's all about Catholicism attempting to be muscular through its bishops. It is of course, blackmail for the faithful. Christianity turned that into an artform under the Inquisition. Are these bishops vying to become the new High Inquisitor?? I always though old Holy Benny had the look of a Torquemada about him!

5

Yane,

Quince Jelly 03/06/2007 08:31:17

#3 If I have tae have a paradigm can I have it wi a shift?

6

JG,

Fife 03/06/2007 08:43:04

A mysoginist organisation making rules to keep their women under control. The Catholic Church's hierarchy won't let females naywhere near their inner sanctum - and obviously they are not involved in the policy making. What's wrong boys, worried that the girls might be too clever for you?

7

Ralph Kramden,

03/06/2007 09:38:01

I laugh when I read about the Catholic Church protecting the rights of the 'unborn'. The same organization which moves priests accused of sexual assault on children to other districts (or other countries) not to protect the children but to protect the Church and the 'kiddie fiddlers'.

As Catholicism has been forced to face up to the presence of paedo- philes among its priests, it has uttered various pleas in mitigation for the sins these men have been allowed to visit on children. The one heard most regularly goes something along the lines of: "If I'd known then what I know now, I'd have acted differently." I'm sure Jock would say the same if he were alive today.

Ironically like the sex case issues the one person being left out is the 'victim' - and I mean the mother. We hear about 'abortion' as a means of 'birth control' but from my experiences few women enter into pregnancy termination lightly - the ones who do are a very small minority.

8

hairy betty,

03/06/2007 10:26:19

Its the best organised crime on the planet, Catholic church has it down to a tee, holier than thou's, give yourself a shake eh!

9

Kenny A,

03/06/2007 11:17:03

This is not an anti Catholic comment, but when they get their own house in order then people may begin to listen to what they are saying.

At present they are fragmented, beset by the pedo problems and seem to be useing the threat of witholding communion as just that a threat. I am certain that some of the real believers may look at the fact it was said "that they exclude themselves from recieving communion", as a direct instruction not to attend communion.

#7 Ralph Your last paragraph is to the point big style.

10

AJ fi Fife,

Fife 03/06/2007 12:58:47

Hairy Betty,

Yer bang on Hen!!! It's nae coincidence that the Mafia and the Papacy walk the same grund!!!!

11

Mark j,

Leith 03/06/2007 13:07:54

Fair eneuch!!! I'll no vote fer a catholic politician until they denounce political interference in Scotland's democratic process. This will back fire on the papacy and its authority here. I never paid attention to a politician's faith before, my partner is raised in the RCC and I have close family who are RCC, even staunch prottie relations who later converted. I accept them and love them as well as respect their choice in their beliefs. HOWEVER, as a secular non denominational secular Christian, I would want to know where my politicians' alliances are with my vote and representation or with ROME's PAPE.
I just read in the Economist that the RCC's hold on their political system has held up the right of a living will which gives a patient the right to decide what their will is while lucid. The church thinks this is a slippery slope to euthanasia. The church should worry about my soul and pray for me while leaving my autonomy over my body.
Mark

12

Calum Crubag,

03/06/2007 17:51:00

#3 - Of course, the Catholic Church has a good record of welcoming 'dissent', indeed as it just now showing! What next, a ban on masturbation because a sperm is a potential life?

Or a return to Old Testament values which demand the death penalty for... children cursing their parents, adulterers and even 'Sabbath breakers'??!

Perhaps the Catholic church would have a better image if those children who were born weren't subjected to mental, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of priests and nuns. Given it's shameful record on covering up child-abuse, women who abort unborn foetuses should be the least of it's worries.

13

Calum Crubag,

03/06/2007 17:53:25

Basically, the Cardinals and Bishops would love to have an 'Islamic' style religious dicatorship here. They long for the days of Franco in Spain who was so tolerant of dissent he murdered 100s of thousands of his own countryfolk.

14

Sunny Sood,

Bearsden, Glasgow 03/06/2007 18:45:05

Wow, there is such an overwhelming majority of people here that dislike this "priest's" words. This pleases me.

Firstly, why people allow any one man's subjective view to govern their own is beyond me. A powerful Christian is once again is trying to flex muscles he simply does not have. We've seen this simply in the fact that the church tried to stop people reading Harry Potter and in every opressed Islamic territory.

The reasons this person should not impose his own values on abortion are: He is a man and so like myself and every other man, does not truly know the burdens of bearing a child. He is a Catholic priest and so ultimately upholds values that view woman as a lower species and therefore does not represent womens' best interests at heart. He has a subjective interpretation of the church's teachings like the rest of us that are not necessarily representative of the peoples opinion.

There are many more but I hope you all agree when I say, religion is a different kind of politics and should not intervene in democratic matters.

15

Alf K.,

Falkirk 03/06/2007 20:26:54

The important thing in this debate is not his view on abortion but that he is threatening elected members. If any of these MPs MSPs feel they must bow to his threats they should resign their position and stand for re-election. Sadly I may some time soon have to ask, any potential candidate for election to public office, a question I have never considered asking before, what is your religion?

16

Catharine,

Winnipeg, Canada 03/06/2007 20:45:28

Should have nothing to do with religion or politics - my body, my decision. As soon as a little fetal parasite can be incubated and formed by that sexless misogynsitic ponce in a red hat like a Dr. Suess character, he can have a say - on his own body.

17

Krump,

no wednesday ever more 03/06/2007 21:33:32

THE FIRE IS FUELED, THESE BISHOPS SHALL FEEL THE HEAT

TIME TO BURN

BURN I SAY

MORE HEAT TO THE FURNACES

18

JG,

Fife 03/06/2007 21:38:46

#16 Catharine
Get off the fence and tell us what you think, girl!!!
:-)

19

hairy betty,

03/06/2007 23:17:30

17, get help.

20

hairy betty,

03/06/2007 23:23:59

10, I dont do harems.

21

Proximaking,

Dundee 04/06/2007 07:03:34

The point is surely that the catholic church is based on this idea of papal infalibility. I know it has supposedly been done away with but it still exists otherwise why would they be going on about abortion? Persoonally I don't remember Jesus saying much about abortion or when a group of cells became a human being but for myself having lot's of children I tend to think they only "come to themselves" any time from 6months to 9 months after being born, up to that point are they any better than chimps and we don't hear the church banging on about rights for chimps, ..... maybe we should. Another HUGE problem with all of this of course is the story of the woman at the well where Jesus said that in the future people would not need a church but would come to God directly so the whole basis of the Christian church, any Christian church, is flawed. If you are going to attack religion feel free, but attack only the way it is practised and not religion per-se. You cannot prove God doesn't exist so why not just accept that he might. As Einstein said there are only two ways to live your life, one is as if everything is a miracle and the other is as if nothing is. For myself I prefer to believe everything is a miracle and wouldn't it be nice for once, a miracle in fact, if the church said it wasn't infallible and actually acted on it by saying we all know abortion is not a good option so what are we going to do about it? Excluding people is the very opposite of what the Christ they are supposed to believe in preached. But they know best of course after all they are infallible.

22

Glasgow Boy,

Glasgow 04/06/2007 12:13:12

This debate, as usual, has generated much more heat than light. Irrespective of what your view is of the Catholic Church or indeed of any other view from a Christian perspective of the morality of abortion, when the 1967 Act was passed it was never intended to be a vehicle for 'social abortion' or 'abortion on demand' such as now exists. Even David Steele recognises that the Act which he was responsible for getting through Parliament has had consequences far beyond what he ever intended. (It was meant to provide a means of taking abortion off the backstreet, and to prevent deaths occurring as a result.)

There is more statutory protection in the UK for offspring and eggs in the wild than there is for human embryos, and on any view, that demonstrates that the present 'morality' which allows 'abortion on demand' cannot be right.

As to 21, Jesus did indeed not exclude people - he was the 'friend of sinners' - but when he refused to condemn the woman who had committed adultery, he also said: "Go, and sin no more'.

23

Helena,

04/06/2007 13:42:51

Why does the catholic church use the phrase " pro abortion" .... they don't seem to want to understand that this issue should not be mandated by the state....it is a legislative issue not a religious one....

I refrain from going into a tirade about the hypocrisy of these same people who allowed children to be abused and did nothing about it except re-cycle them to other parishes...... shame on them for allowing these priests to receive the sacraments.... and they dare to say that many of these catholic legislators should be excommunicated because they understand this is a legislative issue not a religious one...

see Mario Cuomo's speech at Notre Dame re this issue.... (September 13, 1984) a very intelligent and compassionate politician and devout catholic ...who made a compelling case for those catholic politicians faced with this dilemma.

is it any wonder many catholics find what the Vatican and the princes of the church have to say irrelevant.

24

been there,

merseyside but from Fife 04/06/2007 22:22:13

Why don't these so called men of god stop thinking they are Gods.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER THAT SCOTLAND AND THE uk ARE NOT cATHOLIC countries if they want to live under anti women laws and accept that its ok to abuse children (if you confess to a priest) why don't they just move out and see if anyone any where realy wants them or thier self adoring ruddish

25

Chris Mason,

Cheltenham 05/06/2007 06:52:09

The killing of children by abortion violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that, 'the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well as after birth.’ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to life of ‘all members of the human family’. Since the unborn are members of the human family the UDHRs protects the right to life of the unborn. The claim that some human lives are ‘not persons’ or ‘have no legal status’ or ‘have no rights to protect’ have been used to justify slavery and the slave-trade, the Nazi persecution of the Jews and others, and of women who, for instance in Canada, had the status of ‘non-persons’ up until 1925. To claim that others are ‘non-persons’ is used to remove the moral and social obstacles for committing acts of violence. www.unitedforlife.com shows how abortion, embryo experimentation and IVF are modern forms of slavery and that clearly human embryos have human rights.

26

Boyce,

Edinburgh 05/06/2007 16:12:51

If the Catholic churchs views on contraception werent so archaic they would have less abortion issues to deal with.

27

Boyce,

Edinburgh 05/06/2007 16:22:42

The protection of the child that is incredibly rich considering they preach that a baby that dies before it has a chance to be baptised faces an eternity in limbo. A slightly modified improvement on purgatory. Some comfort to the Parents who may believe this cack.
Mind you if they can shift this fundamentally on this issue why not them all?

28

St Monance,

Canada 05/06/2007 20:11:17

When John Kennedy ran for President there was great concern that the Poper would be running the USA. The RC Church worked very hard to convince the world that political power was not their pervue: that there was no need to fear. Now, we see the uncloaked threat of eternal damnation being waved at politicians who seek to represent the needs of their constituency, rather than their personal religious beliefs. Do I want Muslim members impositng Sharia law on me? NO! Nor do I want Roman clerics dictating to political members of their denomination or any other faith.
Let them, by their example, demonstrate the values and virtues of their faith: not by imposing patriarchal domination on the wombs of the women of the jurisdiction.

29

JackJ,

06/06/2007 11:02:10

@3

"Unfortunately, whenever religion (especially if it is Christianity) is discussed on these forums it represents an opportunity for ignorant counter-culture rabid atheists to vent their bile. The problem is, these people cannot tolerate “dissent” from their point of view"

Anyone see the irony here?

If anyone is not on message with the church, they are attacked by religious zealots such as yourself who believe that there should only be one point of view, ie that of the Roman Church.

Last time I looked, the UK was a democracy, where generations have fought for free speech.

You will not stifle debate in this way.

If people disagree, that's fine, but open debate is the way forward.

30

JackJ,

06/06/2007 11:04:35

@6

I fear you are getting far too close to the truth with that statement.

Notably, most of the Cardinal's critics this week in the media have been RC Women.

Why these women stay in a church that treats them with such contempt I'll never know.

31

JackJ,

06/06/2007 11:06:53

@ 12

Yes, I'm sure all the "heretics" burnt at the stake for dissent would agree.

32

JackJ,

06/06/2007 11:20:34

@25

"The killing of children by abortion violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that, 'the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well as after birth.’"

The convention also states

"It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation"

What special safeguards were used to protect children from the abuse and exploitation suffered at the hands of Paedo Priests?

Crimen Sollicitationis?

There are special safeguards on Pre Birth Children. Abortions are illegal after 24 Weeks.
Simply saying "before....birth" is ambigious.

33

JackJ,

06/06/2007 11:22:26

@27


The church recently changed stance on this, as levels of death in Africa are so high in children, that they were in danger of losing so many of their converts.

34

tassiestag,

tasmania 06/06/2007 11:42:07

why do we still put up with those "religious" bigots who try to hang on to their positions of power in what for them is a shrinking constituency.they quite happily support the killing of women and children in the so called war against terror.yet they are proposing that young kids should have to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.get rid off the lot of them.....the ministers and priests i mean.

35

Michael Coughlin,

Cyber Council 06/06/2007 11:46:32

Got to be honest, the attitude does smack more of a religion that treats woman as third class citizens.

36

independent thinker,

USA 07/06/2007 13:52:17

let me first say, that I, living in the US, don't have much room to talk about moral issues, however I'll have a go at it. As a person who doesn't go to church or pray to any god, though I believe in a higher being, I have to say shut up all of you. what these red pointy hat wearing gits have to say in their churches and during their 15 min, on telly is their business and the business of thoes who follow their teachings. For thoes Catholics who believe what is being told to them, good for you, you have what others (esp. here on this thread) don't have, faith and a sense of belonging.

#24 remember that the Church of England (of which I was born and raised, but no longer a member) was built on a foundation of divorce and in some cases Murder. That is your churches history, in the US their are the same if not as many CE et all, child molesters as RC and no one, and I mean NO ONE saies anything about it, only the catholics are demonized.

admit it, Catholic Laws and beliefs will never sway the Laws of the UK. come on, all of you hate the Catholics, it won't happen, so let it go. If abortion is murder, then the same can be said for what Brittin and the US are doing in Iraq and soon Iran. I'll give the RC church this much, their aginst murder now, regardless of their past, but Brittin isn't. please for the sake of our future, turn the other cheek, besides, what if their is a god, and what were doing is a sin? how are we/you going to explain that one away? Hindsight, sweet thing huh?

37

BILLYPOPE,

larkbridge 07/06/2007 18:30:41

For fecks sake I can't believe we are still debating this.
It is not about 'woman's right to choose' ...it is about killing bairns...no more no less. Stop hiding under a bushel you twerps.
The nazis did it, destroying the 'weak', and we all said 'never again'.
It is not about being pro RC or anti RC - it is common human morality.
Why is it still an issue.
Indefensible. You are MURDERERS.

38

Hunky Dorey,

Barcelona 10/06/2007 12:17:31

Social abortion is the greatest crime against humanity since the days of Hitler and Stalin.No one has the right to take the life of an unborn child. An unborn child is not "a choice" It is time that all the churches closed ranks, and in one voice,defended the rights of the unborn.If the unborn child finds itself condemned to death,it is usually referred to as "IT"as in "get rid of it".However should "IT" be allowed to live, then "IT" becomes "HE or "SHE". Strange how the human brain can cover its tracks.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.