Daily Archives: August 19, 2010
We read in a Rasmussen report that the number of those variously opposed to abortion is constant at a pretty high level. In particular, Rasmussen says that:
1) 48% of the US population believe that to obtain an abortion is too easy.
2) 54% believe that abortion is morally wrong most of the time.
3) 43% of the population is outright pro-life (against 49% pro-choice).
Unfortunately, as to the incidence of abortion in voting behaviour there is still a lot of work to do, with only 33% of the population allegedly considering abortion very important in their voting decision and abortion not even making it to the ten most important voting issues.
All these figures, Rasmussen reports, have been fairly constant in the last few years.
It is not difficult to see that once the vast Catholic machinery sets itself in motion with a vigorous campaign in defense of life, in less than one generation (possibly, in much less than a generation) the pro-life tanks might be able to arrive if not directly to the Reichstag, at least well into Third Reich territory.
Thinking of the US, the potential represented by 68 million of Catholic citizens – of whom a majority still happily votes for openly “pro-choice” politicians – is of such scale as to be a decisive factor in itself. In Europe, I might be a Pollyanna but my impression is that popular favour for abortion is stagnating at worst and slowly dwindling at best. I can’t imagine that in a country like Italy any politician would dare to ask for a more liberal abortion law without endangering his career; in Germany, the more “liberal” (read: secular) abortion law of the former DDR has not been adopted after the Country’s reunification; in the UK, the talk has been rather of a reduction of the time allowed for abortions.
All this, without the Church moving Her Panzerdivisionen but rather limiting herself to the usual feeble lament which expects to be ignored. In my eyes, the potential here is huge because the majority of the Catholic population votes for “pro-choice” candidates not out of a determined, fully willed intention to rebel to Church teaching, but because the gravity of the matter is not hammered in by those who should do it: hierarchy and parish clergy.
Abortion is one of the battlegrounds on which Catholicism can move to a frontal attack of the secular society and achieve victory in less than a generation. But this requires a brave clergy, not afraid of criticism (let alone persecution) and ready to fight the good fight of faith.
We’ll be there one day, I’m sure.
The “National Catholic Reporter” is, so to speak, the US equivalent of the infamous “Tablet”. Whilst claiming to be Catholic, this rag is in open conflict with the Church on doctrinal issues. They think it very cool and very modern, presumably.
Today they have, though, a different approach to heresy. As you can read here (if you really want) they have invited a Presbyterian would-be priest to tell us that he does his best not to tell Catholics what to believe but still tells us that “we miss a lot” without priestesses. His main argument seems to be that after seeing the first would-be priestess in his church, his daughter thought about becoming one. “Well, she didn’t do that”, he informs us before our curiosity becomes unbearable, “but at least she could think realistically about being a clergy member”. Now that is an impressive argument…..
Still, one must at least concede that the old man is a heretic and says so, whereas the NCR editorial staff are also heretics but don’t admit it. The brownie goes to the old man, then.
But this is not all: if you manage to read the article and succumb to the curiosity of reading the comments the entire catastrophe of modern (non)catechesis comes to light: one commenter asks (probably innocently) why “we” don’t “forget women priests” and “simply authorise nuns to give the Eucharist”. It would seem that (s)he just has a problem with having to receive from a man and that it is just a matter of “what we forget” and “what we authorise”. Another commenter defines doctrinal definitions as “self-serving” and says that “the sooner they are changed, the better” and this really takes the biscuit.
If NCR’s readers expect to find there the source of sound doctrine they are gravely deluded. More probably, though, they are so in the dark that they do not even know what Catholic doctrine is in the first place or they would avoid spreading such heresies and outright blasphemies.
Proper catechesis is at the root of proper Catholicism. We see every day the damage created by the inadequacy of a large part of our clergy, utterly unwilling to I do not say defend the teaching of the Church, but to give basic instruction about it. This will change, but it will take time. In the meantime, let us do it ourselves in our own little way.