Recently, a SFA blogger described the tragic situation of her sister who has painfully stayed with her husband after years and years of domestic violence. Her sister, a devout Catholic, has heroically "raised four children with this man, after she knew he was abusive and she and her husband raised them in an atmosphere of degradation, violence and intimidation". She and the four kids still suffer tremendously, both physically and mentally, each day now as adults.
"She could have left this man at any time and saved herself and her children, one of whom is an emotional cripple, all that suffering. God did not send her that suffering, she brought it upon herself and her children because she believes her husband is her cross to bear on Earth. The Church says divorce is bad, but is divorce worse than inflicting a lifetime of suffering on innocent children?"
-----------------------------------------------------
First of all, I am deeply sorry for this woman's sister and her children. Domestic violence is one scary thing, and I cannot imagine what it must be like to live in that kind of Hell. Not only do you have to endure physical suffering from someone with whom you live, it is inflicted on you by the one person you trusted more than anyone ... someone with whom you were in love. A terrible, terrible cross for any woman to bear. But, as one blogger correctly put it, it's not a cross that God asks her to bear, if she physically can get out of that awful situation.
And, that gets to the question. The Church doesn't expect this great woman of faith to stay in this dreadful and dangerous situation. In fact, the Church says she should get her and the children out. They are in grave danger; she has a responsibility to herself and to her children to protect their safety, first and foremost. She should contact her bishop, who will give her permission to separate, or if she feels it's necessary, should leave before receiving his permission.
The following is Canon 1153 of the Code of Canon Law (1983) that speaks to this question: "If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay".
Now, to the anonymous blogger who wrote that "the Church has turned their heads the other way when it comes to the needs of women". In what ways do you mean, and can you give specific examples? Until you do, this is an irresponsible, unsubstantiated statement. I will write it here, and then in one of my next posts, that the Catholic Church is the greatest defender of the dignity of women in the world.
8 comments:
Looks like the site is having serious problems. Don't know if anyone can read this, and I'll look into fixing the problem. Go to http://stfrancisderwood.blogpsot.com for updates.
To the anonymous blogger who asked recently about abortion, thanks for your question. There are several resources for you to check out and see what the Church says about abortions involving babies with disorders.
First, some questions for you. Do you believe that all direct abortions are evil...no matter what the circumstances are? Using another example along the same lines, is rape always evil...no matter waht the circumstances are? Are you suggesting that it is better for these babies to be killed than to live with their disorders? Isn't that discrimation?
The first place to go might be Evangelium Vitae, a papal encyclical of John Paul II in 1995. He addresses your question with the first step in the process: prenatal dignostic techniques. He writes, "when they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make every possible early therapy or even to favor a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit.
But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with an eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies" (63).
The former Pope condemns the attitude of killing these precious babies as "shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of 'normality' and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthansia as well" (63).
"And yet the courage and serenity with which so many of our brothers and sisters suffering from serious disorders lead their lives when they are shown acceptance and love bears eloquent witness to what gives authentic value to life and makes it even in difficult conditions something precious for them and for others" (63).
Also, two documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The first is "Declaration on Procured Abortion" (1974). Specifically, the Congregation writes that "any discrimation based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimation" (12).
The second is "Donum Vitae" (1987). Here the Congregation takes up the issue of prenatal diagnosis. It goes into greater detail than EV about the moral implications of these dignoses.
I think the USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) web site is a good place to go to find out how to get a hold of these Church documents. If you have any trouble finding them, let me know, and I'll hook you up.
Thanks again for your great question. Your approach appears to be more compassionate than most, who simply don't want a handicapped baby. That's mainly to whom the Church is speaking about prenatal techniques. But, you and I have to be careful, as JP II made clear, that we don't develop a euthanasic mentality - that is, mercy through killing.
Dear Deacon Greg,
Thank you for your comments and the references you provided. I will try to find them, otherwise, I might holler for help. Prenatal diagnosis used as a means to abort babies who are not normal or who have a genetic mutation that might predispose them to a health disorder, is in fact, discrimination and borderline "positive" eugenics. There is no question in my mind about this, but I ask myself,Why have a child who is going to suffer horribly for 4-5 years and then die? (If you have the chance, look at the article published in the New York Times (www.nyt.com) today titled "A Hunt for Genes that Betrayed a Desert People") Also, there are such things as natural abortions, that is, when too many genetic mutations accumulate in the DNA of an embryo/fetus that fetus is spontaneously aborted (miscarriage). So, if nature (God acts through nature) aborts babies who will not be normal and will have extreme difficulty surviving-Why cannot we? I am so confused!
Thanks for your reply and question.
First of all, you can read my post from last Friday ("A sixth grader's question about abortion") for at least one more reason a baby shouldn't be aborted just because she might suffer: Baptism! She can't receive eternal life through that Sacrament if she is aborted. That's most important!
Now, about what you call "natural abortions". Interesting question, no doubt. It may be correct to say that nature causes miscarriages, but it's another thing to say or suggest that God aborts babies through nature. The whole question of miscarriages falls under physical evil, and it's for another discussion.
The leap you make next from miscarriages to direct abortions shows that you're probably over-thinking this. If we followed the logic that you suggest, could we then say that since tornadoes kill people, why can't we? It doesn't make much sense. The existence of physical evil (tornadoes, miscarriages, e.g.) in nature does not justify our choosing moral evil (abortion, rape, e.g.).
So, I would say that in all of your vast studying of science, keep it simple morally: every direct abortion is an intrinsically evil act. No matter what the circumstances are. No matter what the intentions are. Keep it simple!
What is physical evil? I have never heard of this term before?
How is mortality kept simple????
Thanks!
Below is an excerpt about evil from the Catholc website, www.newadvent.org: I would also direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly # 310, for a better understanding of why physical evil exists in the world.
I assume you meant to write morality, and how to keep it simple. What I meant is that you and I should, as followers of Jesus, be able to see things clearly as either evil or good in matters of ethics. Sometimes, it's not easy to see it at first. That's why it's very important to have basic principles with which to work.
The Ten Commmandments are the most basic Christian moral principles; we see how black and white they are! The world (secular society) wants to make grey areas where God has made it black and white. He has made it simple (at least in terms of knowing the principles...not always easy to live them), but the world wants to make it difficult.
Some situations involving moral issues can be tough to see clearly in black and white, especially in some areas of science. No doubt. To keep it simple means that we approach ethical situations with these fundamental moral principles, such as it is always wrong to abort a baby. That is our grounding for the different situations that arise that might be presented as grey areas.
One other issue that might help to see how to keep it simple: rape. The Church teaches that rape is "always an intrinsically evil act" (CCC, #2356). It is ALWAYS wrong. Someone could try to present "grey areas"...situations whereby rape might not be wrong. But, it's clear to you and me and most rational people that forced sexual intimacy is always wrong. No matter what the circumstances. No matter what the intentions. Just like with the issue of abortion, we keep it simple with fundamental moral principles.
----------------------
"With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds -- physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists.
Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization. Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances".
Thanks! Oh! Yes, I meant morality not mortality. It would be hard to keep mortality simple!
I understand well what you wrote about keeping morality simple, I feel at peace to know that morality could be kept simple. But, when it comes to science it is so difficult. Still, it brings peace.
I still do not understand physical evil. How could nature cause evil? God created nature and I have always considered nature to be God's purest creation. I also do not like the way we are constantly emphasizing human beings as the most important creation. But, I think the part that scares me the most is your quote "Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc." You lost me there. If sickness is an evil then some people could justify abortion as a means of getting rid of the child's evil. Also, I always thought death is a natural part of life, a step to another life, so how could it be evil? Very confusing!! very confusing!!
I am still struggling with this abortion question and I expect to struggle with it for sometime. I had dinner with Adrienne Asch last evening. She is a bioethicist from Yeshiva University that has written extensively about disability and prenatal diagnosis. I have read some of her work. I stopped talking when I saw her enter the dinning room. She is blind. I did know this. I do not think I have ever met anyone with such zest and passion for life and what an amazing smile!
After our dinner, I went to her guest lecture. She told everyone in the room (the room was packed with students and scholars)that life should be valued for what it is--life. She does not want us to embrace prenatal diagnosis, she wants woman to accept babies as they are and not to concentrate on their disability but on their talents, gifts, and virtues. It is the first time I hear a scholar say something like this in a university especially in a room filled with scientists and social scientists. I am not sure if she is religious but she was talking from a pro-choice perspective, at least that is what she said. Although her statement was refreshing, it was not new to me since the Catholic Church has been saying this forever. But, much to my surprise, this statement was new to almost everyone in the room. People were outraged and surprised as if she had discovered something new. While I was sitting there, I kept asking myself "What has happened to us? Where has our society gone wrong? We have gone so wrong that the concept of valuing life is something new to us.
Sorry to confuse you...I need to go back to basics here (practice what I preach, right?!): the Book of Genesis. In Genesis, we read about how God created the Earth as a paradise...it was all good. There was no suffering, no pain, and no death.
Nature was "good". We read that at the end of days 1-5, God looked at what he created and "saw that it was good". After creating man (male and female) on day 6, "God saw all he had made and it was very good".
(Btw, it would be good for you to re-read Genesis 1 to see why man has primacy over all other creatures - 1) "be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth" (1:28). 2) line 27 indicated that God created male and female in his own image and likeness; no other creature is created this way. 3) the "very good" as distinct from "good". 4) God becomes a human being in Christ Jesus which elevates our status even more. Nevertheless, the 'dominion' God has given us over the Earth and its creatures should always be guarded carefully and respectfully).
Suffering, pain, and death entered the world when Adam and Eve committed Original Sin. This is described by the author of Genesis with imagery- before the Fall (Orig. Sin), "both of them were naked...but they felt no shame before each other" (Gen 2:25). As soon as they disobeyed God in eating the forbidden fruit, "the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked" (3:7).
Through this imagery, we see shame/guilt/fear as immediate consequences to their action. Things changed when they sinned. We first hear about "pain" in 3:16 in reference to the woman..."pain in childbearing".
St Paul is one of the first to lay out the general picture of what happened in the Garden of Eden. "It was through one man (Adam) that sin came into the world, and through sin death" (Rom 5:12). He is writing about spiritual death through sin; spiritual death is complete separation from God. That's what Adam and Eve did when they sinned...they separated themselves from God.
St Paul continues to write that "death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned". One of the things he means is that today we experience spiritual death whenever we separate ourselves from God through serious (mortal) sin.
So, sin leads to death, both spiritually and physically. Again, there was no death before Original Sin. There was no physical, moral, or metaphysical evil. It wasn't until the first sin was committed by us (our 1st parents) that evil, death, suffering, and pain entered the world.
It wasn't God who brought suffering and death into the world, it was us. We freely chose to disobey him even though he told us not to. He knew what the consequences would be...disorder to his creation, suffering, death. He can't ever force us to obey and love him; love that isn't freely chosen isn't real love.
I hope this has helped clear up the main confusion. It was all good in the beginning - creation, nature, us. But, everything changed because of a choice our parents made against God. We continue to make the same choice when we seriously disobey God and sin. Suffering and death are natural results of sin...
Hey, I really liked your quote at the end of your last comment: "What has happened to us? Where has our society gone wrong? We have gone so wrong that the concept of valuing life is something new to us". Amen!
Seems like a very interesting talk that that "pro-choice" speaker gave. Sounds very much like a "pro-life" speaker to me! It actually didn't make sense that she said she was pro-choice; now, I'm confused!!
Thank you for your explanation, I will read it several times slowly and think about it and I will definitely read Genesis again. Although, I will never agree with the argument that humans are better or above other animals. It does not make sense and it gives humans an excuse to abuse and control not only our ecosystem but the animal kingdom. Frankly, I think animals are more human than animals. They hunt to eat not for other purposes like we do. But, yes, I will definitely read Genesis again.
Like you, I think Dr.Asch's argument was presented from a pro-life point of view not a pro-choice. But, she said it was pro-choice maybe to cover herself. It is EXTREMELY difficult to be religious and pro-life in an academic setting. I am feeling it like never before! However, most of her papers and books are written from a pro-choice perspective so it is strange that she will suddenly speak from a pro-life view. I may drop her a line asking her about this.
The title of her talk was "Rethinking Choice" and a classmate suggested that maybe what she meant was that we have the choice(pro-choice) not to choose prenatal diagnosis. Ok!!!!
You know sometimes we think we are discovering hot water. What I mean is that we call old concepts that have been taught for centuries "new ideas". All of a sudden we go "EUREKA". Give me a break! Ahhh! it drives me nuts!
These comments do not go directed toward Dr. Asch since I do think she is an excellent scholar and her writing and ideas are like fresh air but it is directed to me and the rest of the dummies in the lecture hall. We really need to start getting back to Earth and pull the rest of humanity along with us!
P.S. I am very proud that you are practicing what you are preaching! :-) :-):-)
Post a Comment