Discuss 'Consistent life ethic' is inconsistent By ROSEMARY RADFORD RUETHER (Nov 17, 2006)
I found this an extremely powerful essay. After having just experienced the inconsistent "life ethics" of the Missouri Bishops during our recent ballot measure on embryonic stem cell research, where I struggled with the issue of when life begins, juxtaposed to Jesus' healing ministry.
When I read the letters in the local paper, or heard sermons from the pulpit recounting lies, innuendos and deceptions designed to find out which buttons might be pushed to rally the “faithful” against the amendment; --and they accused the proponents of being deceitful! I guess it is okay to promulgate untruths, -so the end does justify the means?
To find this reflective, honest, powerful essay on a different, but related subject. Well, I just want to thank Rosemary.
This particular essay was
This particular essay was very gratifying to me. A tad ego-deflating because I thought I was the only one to have come to these conclusions. One extra thought about women, prenancy and abortion is that many, many women have miscarriages during the first few months, and spontaneous abortions after that. Are we to believe that these events that were not under our control, and supposedly under the control of an all-loving God, were evil, murdering events, just as abortion is supposed to be?
Jane White
Good point, Shirley (Or
Good point, Shirley (Or Jane.). I think others on the site have previously brought up the point that in years past, some women of their acquaintance were not "allowed" by certain pastors to bury their miscarried fetuses in consecrated ground. A couple of generations ago, the Church appears to have been "of two minds" about when conception actually took place, as was pointed out in this article. (I don't think the author stated the "timing"--I am just recalling what my Mother and others have told me about miscarried pregnancies (some the Mothers definitely considered "their babies" in the past.)
The other thing, any woman (priests would not be aware of this--they don't carry children) who has borne a number of children can probably remember times when she was almost certain she was "pregnant" (the usual very early signs she had become familiar with) but then had a very heavier than usual "period" instead. She learned that the conceptus probably had not attached itself to the womb. Is this a "death"? A "lost baby"? Or simply, as the word says, a "mis-carriage", a fertilized ovum that was not meant to come to fruition, for whatever reason or defect. Does God give souls to each one of these little fertilized ova, or is there a period until the pregnancy is firmly established before that occurs?
In the animal kingdom, so many eggs are laid that never become mature (although they have been fertilized), and yet, except where mankind has destroyed a species, the Planet teems with life. Of course, this happens naturally. Never before has mankind had the power to limit his own fertility, or to enhance her fertility, where it was not working. This does give rise to inevitable moral and ethical questions. But your question is a valid one, and was considered by moral theologians (including Acquinas)in centuries past with very different answers than the ones available now.
Shootingstar -- Thank you so
Shootingstar -- Thank you so much for your more detailed response. It is very much appreciated.
Shirley-Jane, I am still not
Shirley-Jane, I am still not sure I answered the question that was "behind" your question.
I had many, many friends when I was younger who struggled and struggled to give birth to a healthy baby, and were disappointed time after time by a miscarriage or a spontaneous abortion, (many eventually did succeed but only after years of heartbreak) of course I have to say that this was a terrific loss for these friends of mine. They cried and cried. It WAS the loss of a child to them.
I think that those in the Church who callously speak of "murder" in the case of abortion in very early pregnancy often too, do not realize the pain and anguish of Catholic women who have been taught that even earliest pregnancy is a "baby" and that they are "killing" their own loved child, even if that "child" doesn't have a functioning brain or nervous system. Still, to these women it is horrible, and a great loss, because they would give anything to welcome another baby. It is all too sad that our "culture of abortion" makes alternatives very difficult for such women, and doesn't support care for children who cannot be "supported". Rosemary also alludes to this in her article.
Yet often it is a choice between the life of one and the "lives and futures" of already-existing children. They may have beome pregnant by someone they have suddenkly come to realize poses a threat to the children they already have (in terms of violence). Perhaps it was a mistake, but nonetheless the existing children must be considered and even a delivery and possible "adoption" poses a threat of involvement by a potentially violent and threatening Father-figure. These things really do happen more often than one might think.
They may already have several children and have been raped within marriage by a drunken, alcoholic and violent spouse. Although I have seen posted scoffing that these instances are "rare" they are not rare. They are indeed quite common, especially among those who are poor and without many resources, those most likely to try to follow the Church's strictures against birth control. Domestic violence is quite common.
So, in case a miscarriage has happened, of course there is absolutely no comparison, and no one should compare such a loss to the moral dilemma of abortion. A miscarriage is quite clear-cut. Are you saying that some nasty gossips may "suspect" a person procured an abortion? I don't quite understand, other than the already awful loss of losing a hoped-for pregnancy.
But, on the other hand, often I wonder how a compassionate Christ would look upon the dilemma faced by many women who are often faced with impossible choices. As Rosemary points out, quite often, many women (facing abortion) have had very little or no control over the time and place and circumstances of their exposure to the sexual acts that made them pregnant. Unfortunately, the feminist "choice" idea has done a disservice to many of these women, because many of them never had "choice" to begin with.
Thank God for the NCR. This
Thank God for the NCR. This is one of the few forums left in which the squeek of a voice with another view is given the chance to sing. Ruetherford's analysis is not new. The points she has raised were made vociferously at times in the past. They were effectively shut down under JPII.
I think you might be onto something Mary Robbins. Maybe it's time the voice of Faithful dissent is heard once more. It's much easier to promulgate half truths and biological inventifacts if you're pretty sure no one will stand up and say, "Wait a minute. Maybe you don't have this absolutely right."
In my own case, I found it difficult to plow past the rhetoric where dissent was dismissed with the terms baby killer and murderer. I didn't know how to respond to the kind of rhetoric whose only intent is to shutdown dialogue while subsequently labeling the dissenter in the most obscene terms possible. I still don't. Except that on this site, I feel free to squeek and sometimes sing.
I, too, have often said
I, too, have often said "Thank God for NCR" over the years, as it has alternately challenged me and/or affirmed me. This article by Rosemary Reuther does both. I wonder if I might be one of the original subscribers to NCR. I believe I first subscribed around 1960. I wonder if there is a way to track this? It certainly can be given credit for making me into the kind of Catholic I've become. I've copied this article and sent it to several people and I hope it will generate some discussion among us. It so eloquently states the inconsistencies in the "consistent life ethic". Getting the "life before birth" and "life after birth" guide-lines more in sync would indeed help overcome the credibility gap that now exists. I pray we Catholics will, at the very least, commit ourselves to provide support services to women who find themselves with an unchosen pregnancy and that we will work for ways to "help them find jobs, medical care, and education and daycare for their children."
Hurray for you, Jean! I
Hurray for you, Jean! I quoted that exact sentence on another thread; perhaps I should move it over here. I really believe so many abortions would be unneccessary if mothers could find a way to support and care for their unborn children.
I also read Rosemary's
I also read Rosemary's article and found it very powerful. She talked about how the early Church taught something much different than what is being taught now, about when the soul is present. She pointed out that, quite often, women really don't have a lot of control over when they get pregnant, or even when they have sex. That was certainly my experience as a young married woman, in fact "The Church" instructed me it was "my duty" to give my husband sex "whenever he wanted". (Of course they told him he was supposed to be "considerate" but they left it up to him to figure out what "considerate" meant.) And then they told us, like they are once again reiterating forty-five years later, that birth control is out of the question. What do these celibate men know about what it is like for a young couple, exhausted after working and taking care of children all day, to lie in bed next to the person they supposedly love, and deny themselves closeness and intimacy? What kind of S&M Game is that?
THEY may have opted for celibacy, but just because THEY did, do they envy US? That's what it sounds like...The entire celibacy structure of the priesthood has resulted in sick teaching relative to married sexuality, birth control, very early abortion, gays, masturbation, I could go on. It is upside down and perverse. I believe it is the result of "celibacy envy". Until that issue is addressed, I doubt if anything else is going to change, because basically we have a Church run by people who are preoccupied with sexual denial and nothing else, or who are sexual anorexics, which is a type of "reverse addiction" all tied up with ego and pride, but also focused on sex. Meanwhile people are suffering terribly if they allow themselves to take all this perversion and error seriously, and believe it has anything at all to do with Jesus Christ.
I am only "sounding off" on a very infinitesimal sidebar of a reaction to the article, most of which has almost nothing to do with what the article actually SAID.. (just a small amount about women's control over her sex life and some about what the Church actually taught about when the soul enters the body until a comparatively short time ago.)
(Frannie, I apologize. I have added more to this. If you need to change things, feel free.)
Realities of Couples in America
I urge others to read this very important article for themselves. Dr. (I believe she is a PhD) Reuther has been writing about moral and feminist theology for many, many years. I wonder how much attention Rome pays to her, because she is (after all) a woman...Unfortunately, if women's voices and women's experiences are kept out of the dialogue (especially ordinary married women, not the "supermothers", who are wealthy and have 14 children and servants and "manage smoothly" somehow or even the poor mothers with extended families in the villiage --remember "it takes a village?" well, we don't have a "village" in many of our communities around the world, not anymore. That is a happy fiction. In the US, families move, on the AVERAGE, once every five years. That means some families "stay put" (and have a village) and some move constantly, (because that is what their jobs demand.)
So, taking "average" Moms, who sometimes are exhausted with two closely-spaced children, and have to hold a job and put the kids in daycare or in a decent public or parochial school (rightly or wrongly, it is what our economy demands of many young couples who want to raise their children in a middle-class, NOT WEALTHY, life in many sections of the Country)--the Northeast, the West Coast, the East Coast, and certain areas of the Mountain West and the Urban South, depending on the towns and their economic viability,both parents must work. Maybe parents will have more children than two.
The Bishops' Statement is practically laughable to most of these couples now, unless they are fairly comfortably off.
The Planet
Plus, have any of these Bishops seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? by Al Gore? I live in a place where much of the study and research on Global Warming has been done for years. Do they think Global Warming is a joke? It isn't. Do they think it is some remote, far-off thing? No, not really.
Maybe this why they feel it's OK to keep on populating the Earth? Come on, now! "Populating the Earth" is CONTRIBUTING to Global Warming! Or do they want to be sure that "plenty of Catholics are left" and not "too many Buddhists"? Oh ye of little Faith!
Maybe it's OK with them (policymakers that they are) to cause unimaginable suffering that they are causing with their "policies" of neglect and their short-sighted thinking (as if they don't have to consider these issues, because Christ is going to come on a Cloud tomorrow? Paul and his desciples thought that nearly 2000 years ago!) We might actually succeed in NOT destroying ourselves with nuclear bombs, but where will we be, IF we have destroyed our Planet with carbon emissions and overpopulation in 50-100 years? Oh, that's right--they don't have progeny, so they don't care? One has to understand that "celibacy" has a few long-term "consequences" for the rest of us who have children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews (Even Bishops have neieces and nephews!) I guess these Bishops don't think stewarding our Planet is any of their business?
They have to deal with a Multiplicity of Issues. They cannot have it every which way. Why do they persist in behaving as if they have their heads stuck in the sand?
If they are not going to do it, then it may be that they will eventually become increasingly irrevelant.
Does the Trinity become irrevelant? No. Never. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
But if the Church Hierarchy will not listen to the Imperatives God is showing to the Scientists and the Faithful, what will the outcome eventually be?
I found this article of
I found this article of Rosemary's very interesting. Her thinking is now new to me. I have had these same thoughts myself as a much younger women. Why has it taken us so long so see these conflicts or even admit that there are there? Maybe, just maybe it has to do with the latest cartoon of the Holy Spirit getting out of that cage. Blessings to all
I just read an article about
I just read an article about a moral theologian who considers Iraq a "just war". Whether you believe Bush(I never do) or the other reports about the number of dead Iraqi, this war was, IMO not just. The people who seem to insist that "fertilized eggs" are more important than living,breathing human beings, is more than I can take. In the Dallas paper this morning, there was an article about the thousands of very young Asian girls who are taken, as slaves, in the prostitution business that florishes in that part of the world. Other documentaries I have seen show young girl slaves working 7 days a week. Rosemary Ruther is right, I was happy to see an article that reflects my thinking. I was talking the other day to a "young" youth minister who says "God creates life", therefore fertilized eggs and thus birth control are wrong. I often wonder, when I hear such comments, doesn't God love the life he creates after it is born?