The original conception of the National Health Service was, I believe, a noble one. But it has become a kind of monster in some respects, and a shibboleth in others. No politician wants to be seen to be demolishing the NHS, and yet we are confronted with the situation that our health care provision is not, actually, free, and is not nearly as good as that to be found in France or even Spain. We have been through a huge period of privatization of health care at all levels except the vital one of who actually administers the money. If I could choose an insurance system that did not pay for abortions &c, then I should certainly do so, and that would bring some pressure to bear (which is presumably why this part hasn't been privatized). There would, of course, have to be some system whereby those too poor to afford health care could continue to have access to it.
All of which is getting around to saying: wouldn't it be nice if our own bishops also were able to man up and speak the truth. I happen to know that there really are behind-the-scene discussions with the government which are not without their effect, but these discussions are invisible to the population at large, even the Catholic population. There is a lot to be said for sounding the trumpet and beating the drum. It works wonders for morale, and I think that that is what we need right now.
*Non-UK readers might not know what NICE is; it stands for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. But it was also, prophetically, the name for the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments in C.S.Lewis' That Hideous Strength, the body whose immoral experiments with human life brought dreadful calamities to the world.
13 comments:
Having taught That Hideous Strength to college levels students, I was appalled at the UK NICE label. The British seem to fall into the category of the Church in Revelation 2:20, which I have written about in January on my blog. "But I have against thee a few things: because thou sufferest the woman Jezabel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach, and to seduce my servants, to commit fornication, and to eat of things sacrificed to idols." The Catholics I have met in my twelve years of living in England allow evil at all levels, in their homes, families, government, more than us Yankees. It is a great weakness in the English Catholic Church and shows a lack of catechesis and a lack of Faith. I am sorry to say that God will judge accordingly. I would rather go down fighting than not fight. Maybe it is in the genes.
PS I just put you on my blog list. I only realized today that you may be in the A and B diocese. Duh, I was not paying attention.
Yes Father, it is refreshing to have an almost unanimous response (92% at last count) from our bishops on this issue. For a change it is not just a handful of conservative bishops speaking out, but even many of the more liberal ones (Cdl. Mahony was one of the first to condemn this mandate!).
Much is made of the ‘Catholic Vote’ here in the US, as if it were a cohesive front. Unfortunately, given the number of lapsed Catholics and those in open dissent on various Church teachings, it is far from being a solid block. It is reported that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama four years ago, despite warnings about his pro-abortion stance and record in State and National office. So we’re not all singing from the same hymnbook, mór is trua.
On the Catholic Culture website Dr. Jeff Mirus makes a good point about the need for the laity to get behind the bishops – and in support of their Church – on this. He was speaking about priestly fidelity and the role of priests and bishops in bringing about the renewal of the Faith for which the Holy Father has been advocating. He said:
“If, therefore, the bishops wish to roll back the HHS contraception/sterilization/abortion mandate, they need an energized laity to do the rolling back. This will be accomplished only if lay persons quickly acquire sufficient Catholic identity to adopt one of the following three positions:
1. Position 1: The practices mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services are morally wrong and therefore damaging to both individual persons and society as a whole, whether Catholic or not. It is bad enough that they are so widespread. Therefore, I will strongly oppose any government policy which mandates that citizens promote and pay for such practices.
2. Position 2: I’m not sure about the morality of these practices. But the Church teaches that they are gravely immoral, and neither the Church nor Catholics in general (nor anyone else who regards these practices as immoral) should have to support and pay for them.
3. Position 3: Actually, I don’t mind these practices; I even indulge in them myself. But, you know, there is something about the Church, and it is my Church. And I’ll be damned if I’ll stand by and watch the government push my Church around.
These positions are not equally good, but they are all helpful in the present instance. Once again, the key to success is to activate all the laity who are willing to adopt any one of the three. And by far the easiest way to activate the laity is through priests who live, breathe and communicate the mind of the Church. I grant that priestly fidelity is always critical. But in an age of persecution, it becomes even more critical, or rather it becomes critical in what appears to be a more immediate way, a way which makes us (at long last) realize that time is all too short.”
Hmm. While I personally am not in favour of abortion,I believe it is a matter for a woman, her God and her partner. The State has no business in peoples' bedrooms or with women's bodies. And, as we approach the tipping point for a population too large for this planet to sustain, can we really continue to defend the stance against contraception? Look at a country like the Philippines, struggling with massive over population. Single women won't take contraception or have abortions because it is against their religion, but apparently sex before marriage is somehow given a waiver. And so the cycle of crushing poverty continues... We need to live. In the real world, one which cannot continue to support population growth.
Anonymous
You write, with regard to abortion: 'The State has no business in peoples' bedrooms or with women's bodies.'
You are incorrect on both counts.
The State has a legitimate interest in ensuring the stability of the State: that is founded on the stability of families, and that is founded on marital fidelity.
The State has an obligation to protect all its citizens, born and unborn, whether still within their mothers' bodies or outside them.
Anonymous, can you tell me of one other policy where your view on abortion makes sense?
eg: I am personally opposed to Slavery but it is between the slave, his/her God and his/her partner.
I am personally opposed to drink-driving but believe it is a matter for the driver, his/her God and the possible accident victim.
The subjectilising of right and wrong has brought nothing but disaster for society where now there are now no objective rights or wrongs, just personal preference.
Yes, I should have expected a veiled personal attack (Catholic Left Winger) for expressing my views on abortion, such is the tedious and depressing reality of blog commentary these days.
Your trivialization of my views on abortion are a moderately clever construct, but there are many reasons why somebody would consider abortion. How about incestuous rape, as one extreme example? And in specific answer to your question, I disagree with smoking, which kills millions.... Ditto drug taking...
Ben Trovato - thak you for measured comments and logical argument. I don't agree with you of course, but respect your rights to hold the views you espouse. I don't disagree with your point on the importance of stability of society and state, but the modern era is starting to prove that marriage and fidelity are not the bedrock of these (sad though this is) as increasing numbers opt to avoid marriage, and long term commitment. Unless of course society collapses in the next 30 years, in which case you will have been proved right, and I wrong.
And, the state DOES have a duty protect its citizens from the effects of overpopulation, which was my main point.
It is interesting to note that a German health insurance fund has teamed up with a Swiss Pro-Life organisation to offer health insurance specifically designed for people who definitely do not want abortion cover:
http://www.pi-news.net/2012/02/krankenkasse-ohne-abtreibung/
(Article is in German, but there is an English version of the website and it may be translated in due course. In any case, Google Translate may help)
Anonymous
If the State has no interest in people's bedrooms, then why does the State have an interest in killing that which has been conceived in the bedroom.
If you want a passive State, tell it to get out of the womb.
Anonymous,
my remarks were neither veiled nor an attack; I was asking a question which is one I was interested in an answer to. More than once I have been ignored and/or abused when asking this question; not exactly enlightening or rational.
Interesting that you immediately go to the issues of rape and incest as it ignores the issue related to social abortion which represents the vast majority of terminations.
I don't believe we should harshly judge those who are victims in such appalling cases. Remember though the maxim that hard cases make for bad laws.
SO, if I understand correctly Catholic Left winger, depending on the extremity of the case, it might be permissable to turn a blind eye ( or at least not "judge too harshly"). This is the worst outcome - a law that prevents abortion leading once again to backstreet butchers and all their attendant horrors. You are never going to ban this practice, so it's best to make it legal and safe. Unless of course punishment is what you're after, but my God is a forgiving one.
Let me tell you a less extreme story than my previous example of incest and rape.
A number of years ago an observant and good Catholic mother of 2 children under the age of 3 gave birth to an eagerly anticipated 3rd child. Within an hour, she had suffered a brain haemhorrage, and went into a coma from which she emerged only a few weeks later. Eventually, she made a full recovery, and some 5 years later, despite rigorous observance of the permitted rhythm method of " natural" contraception, she became pregnant. Her blood pressure immediately shot to dangerous levels, and she was formally diagnosed that if she proceeded with the pregnancy, she (and the fetus) would definitely die, and soon. After much anguish, she and her husband opted for a termination, and sterilization. She lived with a constant sense of regret, but also gratitude that she had lived to see her 3 living children grow up and eventually start families of their own.
You would probably say that she should have put her faith in God, and continued with the pregnancy and all its attendant risks. I on the other hand am this woman's eldest child, and am grateful to have had the best mother in the world nurturing me to adulthood. So I say she made the right decision, to sacrifice one unborn chid for the 3 living who needed her badly. In fact I thank God every day for the precious gift of my mother and her courageous decision all those years ago.
I hope this illustrates that there is a human dimension to the question of abortion, and it is not a black and white question of the law, whether secular or not.
SO, if I understand correctly Catholic Left winger, depending on the extremity of the case, it might be permissable to turn a blind eye ( or at least not "judge too harshly"). This is the worst outcome - a law that prevents abortion leading once again to backstreet butchers and all their attendant horrors. You are never going to ban this practice, so it's best to make it legal and safe. Unless of course punishment is what you're after, but my God is a forgiving one.
Let me tell you a less extreme story than my previous example of incest and rape.
A number of years ago an observant and good Catholic mother of 2 children under the age of 3 gave birth to an eagerly anticipated 3rd child. Within an hour, she had suffered a brain haemhorrage, and went into a coma from which she emerged only a few weeks later. Eventually, she made a full recovery, and some 5 years later, despite rigorous observance of the permitted rhythm method of " natural" contraception, she became pregnant. Her blood pressure immediately shot to dangerous levels, and she was formally diagnosed that if she proceeded with the pregnancy, she (and the fetus) would definitely die, and soon. After much anguish, she and her husband opted for a termination, and sterilization. She lived with a constant sense of regret, but also gratitude that she had lived to see her 3 living children grow up and eventually start families of their own.
You would probably say that she should have put her faith in God, and continued with the pregnancy and all its attendant risks. I on the other hand am this woman's eldest child, and am grateful to have had the best mother in the world nurturing me to adulthood. So I say she made the right decision, to sacrifice one unborn chid for the 3 living who needed her badly. In fact I thank God every day for the precious gift of my mother and her courageous decision all those years ago.
I hope this illustrates that there is a human dimension to the question of abortion, and it is not a black and white question of the law, whether secular or not.
By gum,
anger is a terrible thing and doesn't help debate.
My own sister died 5 days after giving birth to my nephew, due to mistakes made by the medical staff. It brought home to me the precariousness of life when it comes to pregnancy and I am sure your parents did what was right given the fact that both mother and child could not be saved. I am sure it was terrible for them and pray God brings them comfort.
Please look at my posts and check whether your responses are to what I wrote or to what you perceive I think.
Post a Comment