Jacqueline Calleja, Balzan
Church's teaching on abortion
Partial-birth abortion is one of the most horrendous procedures practised by some doctors. It envisages the killing of an almost full-term baby. The baby, having been turned around in the mother's womb, is delivered feet first leaving the head inside. The base of the skull is then punctured and the brain is sucked out. Once the head collapses the dead baby is fully delivered.
The reason for this is that unless the baby is killed before it is born the whole operation would amount to infanticide and for this, in our increasingly hypocritical society, the doctor would be charged with a criminal offence. US President-elect Barack Obama wholly supports this procedure and voted against a law which would have banned it.
In another scenario, abortions are sometimes unsuccessful and the baby, especially if it has already passed 24-week gestation, just manages to stay alive. In some states of the US, the baby is then taken to a room and left to die.
A law was presented to have this horror banned and to enable doctors to revive the baby. Obama was one of a number of politicians who objected and voted against it. Can a Catholic who is fully aware of the President-elect's views about abortion, besides his opinions on embryonic stem-cell research or homosexual relationships, among others, vote for him and then serenely go to Communion before going to Confession? The answer is a resounding 'no'.
Catholics are duty-bound to follow the official teachings of the Church as embodied in the numerous documents which Rome routinely promulgates and especially as embodied in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The fact that some churchmen, including eminent theologians, bishops and even cardinals, give conflicting and sometimes contrary views is totally irrelevant. They are expressing their personal opinions and, while respecting them for their position in the Church, the faithful are not obliged to follow their teachings, especially in important matters concerning faith and morals, unless these conform completely to the Church's Magisterium.
This has been commonplace since the early days of the Church and in later times; in England, for example, during the Reformation, the great majority of churchmen sided with Henry VIII in his conflict with the Church of Rome while Thomas More, a layman, was one of the few eminent Catholics to express his loyalty to the Church. He, of course, with Bishop John Fisher and other martyrs paid with their lives for their loyalty towards the See of Peter and how we admire them for this today.
To sow doubt and confusion among the faithful, the majority of whom are devoid of any theological preparation, by presenting conflicting views as if it were morally legitimate to choose either one or the other, is not only irresponsible but also goes against that foremost of Christian virtues - love of one's neighbour.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Tim Ripard
Dec 1st 2008, 14:49
Miriam Maria Micallef, I am not pushing my 'immoral' thoughts on anyone. Unlike Ms Calleja, I did not instruct anyone to vote or not to vote for someone. I merely pointed out that it is unwise to vote based on a single issue. What is so immoral about that? I condemned partial-birth abortion without reservations. Is that immoral too?
You have either misread my comment or failed to understand it.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Dec 1st 2008, 09:29
Tim Ripard,
You fail to understand the principles that true Catholics live by. You have an opinion but fail miserably to understand that a true Catholic cannot vote for a man who favour abortion. You are entitled to your opinion however please do not try to push your immoral thoughts on others. If JC has an opinion about who she wants to vote for, let her vote for whom she believes is truly a just person not just a talented speaker. If yu are not Catholic (I ASSUME THAT YOU ARE NOT) the fair enough but that does not mean everyone is like you Timmy
Franco Farrugia
Nov 30th 2008, 18:07
Can a Catholic who is fully aware of the President-elect's views about abortion, besides his opinions on embryonic stem-cell research or homosexual relationships, among others, vote for him and then serenely go to Communion before going to Confession? The answer is a resounding 'no'.
Well, that's what JC (not Jesus Christ!?) thinks. Obviously, millions of other Catholics, not fundamentalist as Calleja, believe otherwise.
And thank God for that!
Tim Ripard
Nov 30th 2008, 16:58
I condemn partial-birth abortion unreservedly. However, as Kenneth Cassar rightly points out, this is a single issue and it is narrow-minded in the extreme to base one's vote on a single issue. Unfortunately that is a typical Maltese idiosyncrasy, as I have today commented on a popular blog.
Incidentally, can Ms Calleja explain just how an american citizen (of any denomination) can choose to vote for a President-elect? If he's President-elect, Ms Calleja, it's too late to vote.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 30th 2008, 14:55
Ms Calleja here clearly explains a method of abortion with clarity - something which will really inflame those in favour of abortion - even though some of them might actually find this method distasteful. The fact is that it does happen, even if it does so in few situaitons.
The hipocrisy of those involved, keeping the baby partially in and partially out of the womb in order to avoid being accused of taking the life of a newborn baby is very blatant here.
Ms Calleja goes on to speak of the apparent hypocrisy of various responsible members of the Catholic church. But she then says this is irrelevant. She humbly respects them for their views because of their status, then criticizes them for their views, saying people need not listen to them.
This will simply have secularists laughing. Whilst this merely serves to show that the Church is made up of human beings - ie, those who have been spared abortion - perhaps Ms Calleja should be concentrating on changing the minds of those who do not conform, rather than telling us to ignore them.
One should of course vote according to one's conscience, taking into account all relevant facts.
Joe Xuereb (London UK)
Nov 30th 2008, 14:22
The theologically prepared one has uttered. Love they neighbour? Coming from you, that is as rich as hanging damask imbued with the incense of centuries, Jacqueline Calleja. You would be so funny if you were not so tragic. And leave homosexuals alone. Other than leaving you well alone and giving you a wide berth, they never did you any harm. And spare us the usual drivel of Jesus loving them and you praying for them - please!
There's a good girl.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 30th 2008, 13:50
Don't you think it is a little too late for an anti-Obama campaign? National elections are not about single issues. It would also be interesting to know your opinion about murdering babies in Iraq for oil and the privatisation of security services.