The Irish Repeal Of 1983 Anti-Abortion Law Rightly Puts The RC Church In Its Place

Irish women voters whoop it up at Dublin Castle after "Yes" vote trounces the backward anti-abortion faction.

I never believed for one second some of the polls, published in the days before the Irish referendum Saturday, to repeal an antiquated anti-abortion law (from 1983).   That  law (constitutional amendment) punished women with up to 14 years in prison if they even sought an abortion.  I didn't believe those "too close to call" polls because I knew the Irish (most of them) - like Catholics in the USA - were fed up with being told how to use their bodies. Especially by a clergy and pontificate that had long since lost any moral authority because of the sexual abuse crisis -  involving thousands of pedophile priests worldwide - which too many RC dogmatists would prefer to forget (and have the rest of us forget too).

The church also lost much of its credibility in the wake of scandals involving thousands of unwed teen mothers who were placed into servitude in so-called Magdalene convent laundries or mental asylums as recently as the mid-1990s.  Most of these atrocities didn't come to light until a late 1990s documentary on"The Magdalenes"- especially the way the nuns worked the young women to tears, see

Search ResultsThe Forgotten Maggies Official Documentary (52 min) Magdalene ..

Search Results

The Forgotten Maggies Official Documentary (52 min)

This is why the truest words in the aftermath of the resounding 'yes' were spoken by Gail McElroy, professor of politics at Trinity College Dublin:

"This is devastating for the Roman Catholic hierarchy.  It is the final nail in the coffin for them. They’re no longer the pillar of society, and their hopes of re-establishing themselves are gone.”

And that is as it should be!  Whether pronouncing on the ability of deathly ill people - like Brittany Maynard -  to end their lives after incredible physical suffering, or blabbering on the "ills" of masturbation to otherwise virginal adolescents with no other sexual outlets - to trying to shame  women into not aborting an unwanted fetus. (Not a child! A fetus is called a 'child' by ideologues attempting to make false equivalence between actual persons and non-persons.)'.   In all these cases the Catholic moral dogmatists have had their way with the sex organs of their flocks signed, sealed and delivered compliments of the Vatican's fossils in the Curia. But no more! The Irish forcefully said no more running our country from the Vatican. (And oh, by the way, clean up your own act first!)

Anyway, in a powerful final punch, the culmination of what's been called a "quiet revolution", the abomination known as the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution was struck down with nearly preternatural force - by a final tally of 66.4 % to 33.6 %.  If described in football terms, it'd  be a 'blowout'. But that lopsided vote showed most of us what an odious law it was - conferring equal rights on the fetus and the mother and banning abortion under almost all circumstances. The draconian and punitive nature of the amendment forced thousands of Irish women each year to either  travel abroad or to buy pills illegally online to terminate their pregnancies.

That nonsense must now stop and in the words of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar:

"This has been a great exercise in democracy and the people have spoken and said: 'We want a modern Constitution for a modern country, and that we trust women and that we respect them to make the right decisions and the right choices about their own health care'.”

Adding:

"No more doctors telling their patients there is nothing that can be done for them in their own country,” he said. “No more lonely journeys across the Irish Sea. No more stigma. The veil of secrecy is lifted. No more isolation. The burden of shame is gone.”

What was most encouraging is how the 'yes'  votes pervaded different Irish voting demographics. While women outpolled men in the exits, for example, men still supported the 'yes' side, as did farmers and rural counties. But as may be expected, the support for yes was most robust among the young and urban.

In the words of Irish Times columnist Finan O'Toole:

"For all the attempts to divide us into tribes, the exit polls showed that every part of Ireland voted broadly the same way, which was to trust its women and make them fully equal citizens."

Of course, there was the expected caterwauling and promises of "this isn't over" from the losing side, who ought to know after this (like the personhood morons in the States) that it is over. As one of them - Cora Sherlock, deputy chairwoman of one of the largest anti-abortion groups-  whined:

"Today is a sad day for Ireland and for people who believe in genuine human rights. The struggle to defend the most vulnerable has not ended today, it’s just changed.”

Sorry, Cora, but it has ended.  I hate to have to spell this out, but fetuses have no rights such as the already born do. A fetus cannot have the right to vote, or the right to free speech - given it has no speech- nor a right to bear arms, or to have a trial by jury.

More to the point here, the Irish anti-abortion crowd would do well to process they've actually been had by their esteemed Church.  I refer to the fact up until 1869  the Catholic Church DID ALLOW abortions to be performed up until the third trimester.   This, according to John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, and citing a long standing tradition of Canon Law. (See, e.g. Druyan and Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990).

But wait! The RC Church is now adamantly against abortion. What can explain this turnabout?  Well, obviously, if you can alter a position, it is hardly "absolute" or true for all time. In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Hans Kung observes (p. 143):

"No one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."

In other words, the basis for all theological, moral rulings on issues like abortion is that they are relative only. Clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone.  If this is so, then their authority over a given nation' citizens is fleeting, temporary only - and that is by virtue of national laws enacted to prop up bogus theological dogma.

But as the Irish vote shows,  women can be released from the shackles of the knuckle draggers when the specific nation holds a referendum to dump the national law.  In other words, Irish citizens had the final say on whether women would be hostage to some ancient, absurd dictate now worth no more than a half ounce of doggie lickspittle.  At the same time the Church, which still hasn't resolved the priest sex abuse crisis, has to take one on the chin  - in a hearty blow delivered by Irish 'yes' voters.

Best advice to the losers? Try to lick your wounds, and instead of wasting time on an 8th amendment redo, learn why your countrymen voted as they did.

In the meantime, we need to bear down on the Trumpie assholes who - using a Reagan era gag rule - have prohibited doctors, nurse practitioners and other medical staff from even referring patients to abortion info.   It is absolutely sickening that while Ireland has made a great leap forward in social progress we've allowed the Trump degenerates to take us backward...toward the days of back alleys and coat hangars.

---------------------------------------
Notice to EU readers: This site deposits cookies and according to EU law you must be notified. (You should be seeing a separate notice - compliments of Blogger- when you visit Brane Space.)  This is because Brane Space uses Adsense.  For your further information see:  “How Google uses data when you use partners’ sites or apps.”

Will Pope Francis Get A Hero's Welcome From Conservative Catholics? Doubtful!

"The church is not grounded in the human experience. This pope is. This pope has an understanding I've not seen in other popes. He talks like a person who actually knows something about human life". -  William D'Antonio, sociologist at Catholic University, in today's Denver Post (p. 4A)

As Pope Francis' arrival in Washington draws near, a question being bruited about is the form of welcome he will receive from conservatives, especially conservative Catholics. We know the conservative Repukes are up in arms, about his recent attacks on crony capitalism, as well as defending the scientific basis of global warming. Most Repugs' heads are ready to explode over these issues, and it has even draw a few to write pre-emptive columns directed at Francis such as appeared in the Weekend WSJ.

Conservative Catholics are another matter, and the Pope's entire reign so far has many of them in a state of near hysteria. as well as apoplexy. They are especially burned up by several of the Pope's recent proclamations, about the nature of evil as well as his apparent "slacking off" on Catholic sinners - especially those who violate the "pelvic dogmas" (i.e. against masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, adultery etc.)

"Pelvic Morality" was a term used for decades to describe the unhealthy obsession of the Roman Catholic Church with the human pelvic region, including the female vagina, fallopian tubes and ovaries, as well as the male organs, including the seminal vesicles and testes. One philosopher has suggested this obsession dated from the time of St. Augustine (fresh from his Manichean mental domination) and the belief that female carnality was a refuge of demoniality.

Well into the Middle Ages this view persisted, manifesting in the belief (often echoed by Church Fathers such as Aquinas) that sins such a adultery demanded much more severe physical punishment of the female than her offending male counterpart. This was because by her nature she was deemed closer to the demonic hordes. Indeed, a widepsread belief among prelates late into the Enlightenment was that male virtue and mental acumen was easily "ensnared in female wiles and the flesh". Hence, the recommendation of those like Aquinas for the female body to taste the whip when caught out in such things as adultery, or simply fornication before marriage. (See also Ute Ranke-Heinemann's: Eunuchs in the Service of Christ).

On the male side, the Church's pelvic fetishists obsessed over the intrinsic nature of human sperm (spermatocytes) which were viewed as "homunculi" or tiny -miniature humans, at least until the first microscopes with sufficient power showed otherwise. Hence, any mischievous spilling of seed could not be countenanced, lest these miniature humans perished in a pleasure-induced "holocaust". Thus, the fierce proscriptions against masturbation, and the Vatican's pronouncements of being "mortal sins".

Wearing their little brains out, prelates locked away in their ivory towers and behind hallowed halls of ivy also concluded that if any artificial contraception was used - say in the marriage act- it had to become reduced to no more than "mutual masturbation" since the "natural outlet for new life" was impeded. If a married woman did this, then she could be no better than a whore - hence the 2013 recounting by columnist Gail Collins of how a long time friend went to confession, confessed her use of birth control to some old fart padre, and was told in a loud voice: "Then, Missus.....YOU are a WHORE!" No wonder one Catholic is leaving the Church about every twenty minutes!

This obsession by conservo Catholics was reinforced in a recent Denver Post article ('Disruption Among Catholics', Sept. 19, p. 15A)  citing Hofstra University Professor Julie E. Byrne whose specialty is American Catholics. According to her (ibid.):

"The so-called bedroom issues have always been important to conservatives and to Catholic conservatives in particular"

She then agreed that the feeling among the Catholic conservatives is the Church is the last bastion "holding the line" on these sins, so that any divergence or apparent softening of harsh positions is unacceptable The Pope must, MUST declare that even a single masturbation merits eternal hellfire, as much as Hitler might get for killing 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

Insane? Not really! We already know that proportion and balance are not attributes of the conservative Catholic mind, or conservatives in general. Of course Hell must be the destination for a single sexual sin! It's on a par with committing genocide!

Hence, also the over the top opposition to artificial contraception.(Generally referred to as "mutual masturbation" by Catholic Ethics Professors and priests teaching Catholic morality.)

But there are also statements the Pope has made which have caused implosion of Catholic conservatives' brains, such as:

- Telling a prominent Italian atheist that "everyone has his own idea of good and evil" - not to mention averring even hardcore atheists could reach heaven, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/is-pope-francis-atheist-nope-but-he-is.html

- Asking 'Who am I to judge?' in relation to a question concerning gay priests

- And then there's the Pope's interview in the October, 2013, Jesuit magazine, 'America', wherein he was asked to name the 'biggest evils" in the world and replied: "Youth unemployment and loneliness".

This so upset blogger Steven Skojec ('OnePeterFive' website) whose head hasn't been the same since, replying (ibid.):

"That's a jarring statement when you're on the front lines of the culture wars looking at the death toll of abortion."

Totally unaware that the Church DID ALLOW abortions to be performed up until the third trimester, and until 1869. John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, has been quoted as citing a long standing collection of Canon Law that “it was not until 1869 that abortion for any reason became grounds for excommunication” (See, e.g. Anne Druyan and Carl Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990).

Meanwhile, Catholic publications have piled on, according to the Post piece. For example, one writer for the Catholic conservative publication 'First Things' "called Francis an ideologue and meddlesome egoist"

Seriously? An egoist? Can we now say this guy is a certifiable jackass?

Then there was the Bulletin from a church in St. Hedwig, Texas which bemoaned his encyclical Laudato Si, writing:

"It's too bad he acquired and used phrases that are scientifically unproven and used by the segment of world leaders that strive to control people by controlling energy issues, usages,"

Hmmm...sounds like a pro-fracker to me, who doesn't have the first clue about how his pet energy "usage" is mangling this nation - from destroying water sources, to polluting air and soil.  I'd also warrant this dope couldn't pass a basic thermal physics test.

Then there is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who says it "might be necessary to resist the pope's doctrinal shifts".

Oh really? So you know Catholic doctrine better than the pope and are also infallible?

Then there is blogger Skojec who (un-)graciously spouts (ibid.):

"Popes make mistakes. There are good popes and there are bad popes".

Let's not pretend here. The Pope will get a polite welcome from the conservatives - given it's his first trip to the U.S. - but don't look for these knuckle- headed knuckle draggers to hail him as any kind of hero.

Birth Control Must Figure Into Any Papal Encyclical On Climate Change

Pope Francis is preparing an encyclical on global warming-climate change. If it is to mean anything it must allow provisions for birth control, not merely adjure people to consume less.

The news (Denver Post, June 12, p. 13A)  that Pope Francis is now finishing a papal encyclical on global warming has conservatives - Catholics and non-Catholics alike- fretting on the implications. Republican conservos, as is their misguided wont, fear the pontiff conferring benediction on the validity of human -caused climate change which they regard as a "hoax". Catholic conservatives are terrified because it inevitably interjects the issue of the world's growing population - a basic generator of CO2. They fear that any acknowledgement of climate change - especially traced to humans- leaves the door open to accepting the UN agenda that universally gives women access to artificial contraception and abortion.

Since both are claimed to violate Catholic moral tenets, this would be unacceptable. Never mind that before 1869, the Church allowed abortion up to the end of the first trimester. John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, has been quoted as citing a long standing collection of Canon Law that “it was not until 1869 that abortion for any reason became grounds for excommunication” (See, e.g. Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990).

The larger point here is that clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone!  What this means is that the Church itself cannot be free of errors in faith or morals if it has already made one that was since covered up.

As for birth control, let's not forget that the Papal Commission set up by Pope Paul VI advised that he alter the Church's stance to allow artificial contraception (cf. Contraception and Holiness- The Catholic Predicament, Collins Publishers, UK, 1964. ) Despite that, Paul rejected his own Commission opting instead to adhere to Vatican hardliners like Joseph Ratzinger.

All this is germane given that how Francis deals with the inexorable population growth as it affects the environment, has to be one of the key questions to be answered when the encyclical, 'Laudato si, on the Care of Our Common Home' is released June 18.

As I noted in earlier posts, over-population is at the root of all the problems, including fouled water, polluted air and soil, melting glaciers, severe crowding - not to mention mass panic migrations (such as  seen this past week to Europe).  There are UN estimates that project a global population of 10.9 billion by 2100. If, however, women - mainly in the poorest nations and without access to contraceptives -  have even 0.5 more offspring each than projected,  that 2100 estimate could turn into 12.3 billion or even 15.8 billion.  See e.g.

The latter pointing to a certain 'Soylent Green' world. Meanwhile, Adrian Rafferty of the University of Washington, publishing in a recent issue of Science, computed there's an 80 percent probability that world population - now 7.3 billion - will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion by 2100

All this means that the Pope, if he is serious, cannot ignore or dismiss the adverse role human over -reproduction plays in contributing to a host of problems - including mass poverty and the greenhouse effect. In the case of the first, we note too many people outstripping the resources to provide for them - especially in places like Africa - which at its current rate of reproduction could see 5 billion people by 2100.

 Clearly also, the pollution of the atmosphere* in tandem with the accelerating greenhouse effect, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time of birth.  The more people generated the more CO2 produced as a result of their gobbling resources and assorted carbon footprints. While the latter are greatest in the West, because our societies are based on consumption, the lesser footprints also matter in the sense that wars, tribal unrest and religious wars can result in millions fleeing their home nations and disrupting the balance of life in those countries fled to.

The most salient point for the pope is that the existing mass of 7.3 billion humans is currently gobbling the equivalent of 1.6 Earths each year. This is clearly unsustainable and one of two things must happen: humans must cut their numbers radically - preferably by cutting birth rates, or those uncontrolled  numbers will overwhelm the existing resources leading to mass starvation and destitution.

So artificial birth control, and yes - abortion too (if the birth control fails) must be available for a world teetering on the brink of catastrophe.. Failure to acknowledge this will mean the encyclical will be essentially a still born, sterile document - all form and no substance.
-------

* New research has found that natural gas "flaring" at frack sites has added pollutant emissions to the atmosphere equivalent to "77 million cars". The noxious substances entering the atmosphere include:  carbon monoxide, benzene, and volatile organic compounds. (EOS: Earth and Space Science News, Vol. 96, No. 10, p. 5)

Timothy Dolan is WRONG! Catholic Doctrine CAN and HAS BEEN Changed!

Cardinal Bergoglio Becomes Pope Francis one year ago.

This is the 1st year anniversary of Pope Francis' election as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and facts are already getting skewed and distorted by the "princes" of the Church. This is in regard to Francis' novel takes on RC doctrine, and also how permanent it is. This was brought up this morning on the CBS Early Show when Charlie Rose asked Cardinal Timothy Dolan if Church doctrine could ever be changed and he responded 'No.'   Then I pondered whether I'm living in an alternate universe, because in the one I inhabit it most certainly CAN be changed and HAS been changed!

Let me again remind readers that the Church's birth control proscription, for example,  is not any kind of a central doctrine-  issuing as it does from the Magisterium or teaching office, and not ex Cathedra or from the 'Chair of St. Peter' (which office designates "infallibility"). Hence, and logically, as Hans Kung has pointed out ('Infallible?') it could be wrong ....so there is no absolute compelling reason to follow it and most priests in the day (late 1960s-70s) regarded it as matter of personal conscience.

More to the point, Pope Paul VI actually formed a commission to look into the matter in 1968, with the view to altering this teaching and was roundly informed he needed to do so - or the Church would lose millions in first world nations  (as it has, including me).  Paul rejected the conclusions of his Papal Commission, likely owing to some arm twisting by the relics in the Vatican Curia. 

Fast forward to 1978, and Pope John Paul I had planned to change the birth control doctrine, understanding the ferocious and unseemly burden too many children put on families that could ill afford them, such as his own (David Yallop, 'In God's Name').  Alas, John Paul I was murdered before he could do so, though most deep politics observers believe this was more to do with his intended shake up of the Vatican Bank - run at the time by renegade padre, Paul Marcinkus.   The Bank had been funneling money to unsavory types such as P2 in Italy (op. cit.) and the gangsters involved didn't want any light cast on their deeds. A pity! Had Albino Luciani been elected Pope I'd likely never have left the Church and become an atheist.

It wasn't to be. A new, much more conservative pope (John Paul II) was elected, and the Church could breath easier again. There’d be no Vatican Bank shake ups, and several papal encyclicals

But let's move on!

The majority of Catholics (and probably non-Catholics) are probably totally unaware that the Church DID ALLOW abortions to be performed up until the third trimester, and until 1869. John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, has been quoted as citing a long standing collection of Canon Law that “it was not until 1869 that abortion for any reason became grounds for excommunication” (See, e.g. Druyan and Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990). At the time the lack of dogmatic ruling created such furore that conservatives in the Church pushed for a higher dogma that would transcend the wishy-washy Magisterium ruling. They thereby succeeded in foisting the very late (1870) doctrine of "infallibility" which was more a rear guard action -addition to protect the Church from any possible subsequent alterations of moral teaching.

Thus, if a ruling came "ex cathedra" and applied to faith or morals, the Pope couldn't make a mistake. (Of course, as the “papal infallibility” doctrine was only first proclaimed in 1870, it conveniently didn't apply to rulings made earlier such as the ones on abortions allowed up to the 3rd trimester). But the larger point here is that clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone!

What this means is that the Church itself cannot be free of errors in faith or morals if it has already made one that was since covered up. Obviously, if you can alter a position, it is hardly "absolute". In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Hans Kung observes (p. 143):

" no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently
cannot be erroneous."

Then there is the subtle doctrinal change embodied in "papal primacy",  first enunciated with force in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, of July 18, 1870. As some readers may know and which Theologian Hans Kung makes clear ('Infallible?' p. 77):

"the definition of papal infallibility presupposes the definition of papal primacy". 

Before Pastor Aeternus, the Body of the Church held paramountcy, i.e. the body as in the people. The order was reversed from July 18, 1870 with papal primacy trumping the people. How or why did papal primacy and infallibility (not in evidence before 1870 in any Church doctrines) transpire?

This is made clear in the Introduction of Pastor Aeternus:

"With daily increasing hatred on all sides, the Gates of Hell are rising, to overturn the Church, if it were possible, against its divinely established foundation. Therefore we judge it necessary, for the protection, safety and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, to propose the doctrine of the Institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy, in which the strength and solidity of the whole Church consists, to be believed and held by all the faithful, according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church and to prescribe and condemn the contrary errors so pernicious to the Lord's flock."

Though wordy and somewhat convoluted, the message is:  The faithful themselves can't be trusted to judge  from whence the threats to their faith issue. Hence, they require a  spiritual "Papa" (pope) to decide and adjudicate all spiritual threats for them.  Whenever his utterances are declared ex cathedra, or from the Chair of St. Peter, they are "infallible" and can't be contradicted.

Hence, the need for papal primacy (and its implicit authority)  over the outlook or message of the faithful, including any upstart nuns.  This is why the likes of Ratzinger, for example, never hesitated to smack down any nuns whose messages appeared to be I conflict with the Curia's.   They'd do this if  nuns like Sister Margaret Farley e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/nun-articulates-sexual-ethics-for.html

breathed even a word about things like birth control or masturbation being in any way acceptable - never mind that Ratzinger and his predecessor were busy shuttling priest abusers around so they wouldn't be found out, and covering up any documents.

The fact is, contrary to Dolan's bollocks, the Church CAN and HAS changed its doctrines, in subtle and not so subtle ways. The problem is that most Catholics aren't aware of Church history so don't know about it. The casting of changeless doctrines is done for a very strategic reason - to make the flock believe that nothing ever will change in any real way. Hence, all Francis can do is resort to soft rhetoric but never change the doctrines themselves.

If Francis really believes that, then I am sorry for the Church - including its followers, and believers!