Author: Douglas Knight

A contributing factor to post-abortion trauma is silence from the Church. The common reluctance to preach on the matter because there are some women in the Church who have had abortions and it will hurt them is misguided and harmful. There is a crying need to acknowledge the grief of abortion – silence pushes this grief underground and prevents forgiveness and reconciliation.

Since, sadly, the rate of abortion among Catholic women is about the same as the rate in the general population, there is no question that there will be many women in our parishes who have had abortions. They need the grace of the sacrament of penance, the understanding of the Church and the clear and unambiguous commitment of their priests to preaching compassionately against this evil – and indeed the reaffirmation of the virtue of chastity for their own children.

Tim Finigan

A mother and daughter, both of whom had had abortions, and became pro-life. They went to the parish priest with a pro-life poster asking him to display it in their church. He politely took the poster and folded it, saying to them: “You know, I can’t put this up. Don’t you know there might be women in my congregation who have had abortions?” Our silence denies these women the right/opportunity to grieve for their child. Silence means that their child’s existence is denied.

There are prayer vigils regularly outside the abortion mill at Bedford Square.

John Boyle

Last weekend, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a wonderfully concise and eloquent statement on embryonic stem cell research. When printed out, it comes to barely more than six double-spaced typewritten pages, but within that relatively small compass may be found all of the elements essential to a well-formed Catholic conscience on this important question. Even more remarkably, the statement marshals its argument in a manner that can be grasped by a person of ordinary intelligence.

Given the complexity of the subject and the continual stream of disinformation propagated by the mainstream media on the question, this is no small accomplishment. The bishops deserve a hearty round of applause for piercing to the heart of the matter in such a thoughtful and accessible fashion. The pity is that it hasn’t been done before, but now that the statement is out, every effort should be made to ensure wide dissemination throughout the nation’s parishes. A rough estimation suggests that its fifteen paragraphs would fit nicely onto a single two-sided page for insertion into weekly bulletins. But there’s no reason why the effort to educate the laity should end there. Homilists should be encouraged to expound upon its themes from the pulpit.

Michael Uhlmann The bishops get it right

Karl Barth Church Dogmatics III.4 3.

1. When marriage is seen in the light of the divine command it is surely evident that the decision for the way of marriage is for some, as the choice of the unmarried state is for others, the matter of the supremely particular divine vocation. (p.183)

2. When marriage is seen in the light of divine command and it is plain to men and women united in marriage that here too and especially that they are called to be obedient to God then the fulfilment of this life-partnership becomes for them a task (p. 187)

3. When marriage is seen in the light of the divine command, it is apparent that it is full life- partnership. It is this fact which differentiates marriage from other relations between human beings and between man and woman. (189)

4. When marriage is seen in the light of the divine command, it is clear that it is an exclusive life-partnership. With or without a family it builds and shapes a home where many may go in and out… The man who thinks it is possible or permissible to love many women simultaneously or alternately has not yet begun to love. (195)

5. When marriage is seen in the light of the divine command, it is clear that it is a lasting life-partnership. It is the full and exclusive union of a man and a woman for the whole of the time which is still before them and which is given to them in common. To enter upon marriage is the of renounce the possibility of leaving it. (p.203)

6. When marriage is seen in the light of the divine command, this is decisive for the question of its genesis. It is now made manifest that to be concluded and lived out in freedom, marriage requires from both participants free and mutual love. And we further maintain that it is not their love for each other but God’s calling and gift which is the true basis of marriage. (213)