Mexico approves abortion - & gets excommunicated

200,000 illegal abortions occur in Mexico each year, 2,000 women die - was about the same in America prior to Roe vs Wade. So, the Mexican congess grabbed themselves by their balls and voted to protect women from having to risk their lives to having the choice of life - their own.

It takes a certain amount of integrity for a politico to do something that is not religiously popular with their "church" (mosque, temple, etc.), even when it is meant to protect and not simply conceed to the religiosity of "the church".

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?reoum=0721
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/30721/ci_5745966
Good luck finding these btw, but they are there - it is just a matter that ... well you figure it out.

I, always find it amazing how hard the Catholic church works to turn time back to the 13th century. Or, is it just me? No, after all they murdered Popes that tried to drag them into the next century (John Paul I, for example).

Mexican politician demonstrated an increadable amount of courage; I only hope our own politicians use their example as an insperation to the reality of what abortion is and come to the reality of the horrors that not allowing proper medical oversight creates. Then again, why lose a politcal button?
:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

I, always find it amazing how hard the Catholic church works to turn time back to the 13th century.

---

Abortion was not a problem, not even an issue in the Catholic Church until about 1870, when the numbers of believers in major Catholic countries in Europe began to decrease and the Church needed to revitalize. Only then did abortion become a 'moral issue' for Rome. The Maria cult was also part of this strategy of revitalisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Abortion was not a problem, not even an issue in the Catholic Church until about 1870, when the numbers of believers in major Catholic countries in Europe began to decrease and the Church needed to revitalize. Only then did abortion become a 'moral issue' for Rome. The Maria cult was also part of this strategy of revitalisation.

---

Tell that to the guy that built the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. Was he a visionary before his time?

I'll agree that abortion wasn't the issue 300 years (and more) back that it is today. I think midwifes used to perform it and in the 19th century, when doctors started organizing themselves as a profession, the whole abortion question now became a 'medical procedure' and a moral question at the same time.

But your last statement is misleading. It implies that the Church only began to honor Mary in the late 19th century. I've heard this in several secularist circles, but it's inaccurate. Yes, there was renewed interest in Mary and other aspects of a more spiritual life. This was true across the religious spectrum in the 19th century, not just among Catholics. But Mary has been an important figure in the Catholic Church for just about as long as there has been a Catholic Church. Religious orders were founded with her as their head throughout the middle ages. If I recall, I think it was the devotion to Mary that was one of the side-issues in the Great Schism, the Greek church thought the Latin one paid her too much mind.

As for the topic, what's your point Khafir? That the Catholic Church needs to change it's theological position whenever an elected assembly passes a law so that they too stay in lock step with the current fads? In countries that allow euthenasia (willing and now, even unwilling), does that mean the Church should just shut up and let it continue?

Sure, as a matter of law, the Mexicans have the right to approve legislation that allows for abortion. But if the Church truly believes its wrong, don't they have the right to say so? Or do people only have the right to free speech when they agree with you?

Edit: I read your Inside Bay Area link and there's nothing about excommunication. I read all the relevant links in your Catholic World News website, and the only thing I could find was a warning from Church Officials that those performing abortions could potentially face excommunication. I never saw anything about Mexico getting excommuincated, nor any of its legislators. Could you show me something that shows where the nation of Mexico or the Mexican legislators that voted for this got excommunicated?

Quote:

---

Could you show me something that shows where the nation of Mexico or the Mexican legislators that voted for this got excommunicated?

---

And for the record, it's the city of Mexico City passing this ordinance, not the country of Mexico at-large. Abortions are still illegal in Tijuana and elsewhere in Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

I didn't find talk of excommunication either; but I did find some semi-interesting info on Kafir's allegation of JP1's murder (there's a whole body of conspiracy theory out there, of which I wasn't aware).

Caution to all: Catholic-bashing will result in close scrutiny of poster's words. Please assist in maintaining civility.

Wow, that's not nice, calling everyone Khafirs. And it's Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Tell that to the guy that built the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. (..) But your last statement is misleading. It implies that the Church only began to honor Mary in the late 19th century. I've heard this in several secularist circles, but it's inaccurate. Yes, there was renewed interest in Mary and other aspects of a more spiritual life.

---

We better tell the guy who built the Sacré-Coeur, non? You are right. I meant the Immaculate Heart of Mary cult, not the Mary cult as such. Sacré-Coeur (Holy Heart) was a major symbol of the drive. You are also correct about the spread of the medical profession being the (profane) root of the moral issue, whereas the Church of Rome's interest in the matter was mainly, shall we say, demographic.
:bow:

Vladimir-- no, its los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Kukri-san knows his stuff. :bow:

Don Corle-- Why bring in the useless red herring of "well whadya wanna do, deny free speech or sumtin?" The same principle which gives the church the right to express its opinions gives KC the right not only to disagree, but to take action against them, as long as such action is in accordance with all laws. It's called "Democratic society" or also, in this case, "life".

As far as the topic, abortion sucks. And if Mexico City wants to save lives, they should fix their traffic system and put three fourths of the residents in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

As far as the topic, abortion sucks. And if Mexico City wants to save lives, they should fix their traffic system and put three fourths of the residents in jail.

---

I'd be happy if they exported fewer citizens to "El Norte" as well. :devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Vladimir-- no, its los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Kukri-san knows his stuff. :bow:

---

They better change the map at the Mexico City airport.

The church is getting tough, I'm shining my chain mail for when the call to retake the holy land comes.

Leave abortion to one side - we've done that before.

We have two views put here both critical of the Catholic Church rather than criticising the church's view on abortion. One states that the church is trying to turn the clock back to the middle ages and the other that the church's position on abortion is demographic rather than moral. Either these views are based on evidence or the are the product of anti-Catholic mind set.

If the Catholic church is trying to turn the clock back to the middle ages then you would expect modern pronouncements against the other developments since then such as the rise of nation states, democracy, female suffrage, abolition of slavery, legalisation of usury, advancement of science etc. etc. If it is a demographic rather than moral issue then you expect the church to condemn abortion for Catholic women and just leave the others to get on with it, maybe even encourage them. You would also expect some documentary evidence of statements about the number of believers. Anyone who holds these views care to back them up with such citations? Or am I right in attributing them to anti-Catholic bias?

The emergence of abortion as a moral issue for the Catholic church is nothing to do with increasing its numbers, neither is it connected with the cult (note the pejorative language here) of Mary. In the late 19th century and before the mainstream view on abortion (and even contraception) was in line with a teaching of the church. Once mainstream views and Catholic teaching diverged then the church had the need to promote its pro-life views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Anyone who holds these views care to back them up with such citations? Or am I right in attributing them to anti-Catholic bias?

---

These days it seems people aren't allowed to have different views, only different prejudices. This appoach spells the end of reason in human discourse. My bias or yours, that seems to be the question.

Quote:

---

Once mainstream views and Catholic teaching diverged then the church had the need to promote its pro-life views.

---

The Church changed its stance on abortion in 1869 (declaring it a deadly sin under all circumstances) as part of a wider drive to restore its demographic, social and political position. This was a response to previous decline in all these areas, and the rise of anti-Catholic sentiment (French Revolution, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, Italian secular nationalism, etcetera). As for the role of physicians in the anti-abortion drive of the nineteenth century, this role is expressly acknowledged and praised by Catholic sources. So much for 'bias'. Now let's get back to exchanging views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

These days it seems people aren't allowed to have different views, only different prejudices. This appoach spells the end of reason in human discourse. .

---

Your posts contain some assertions and some facts. Fact: Canon law was changed in 1869 so that those who participate in abortions would be excommunicated. Assertion: this was part of a response to anti-Catholic sentiment and an attempt to increase its demographic, social and political position. Both of these are clearly your views. I am interested in where these views come from. Do you have some objective evidence to back them up or are do they come from some anti-church bias? By asking you this question I am not seeking to stifle debate. Neither am I asking a rhetorical question to accuse you of bias. If you have something to back up your assertions then I am interested to see it. Exchange (and development) of views are important, but all of our views are, to a greater or lesser extent, affected by our prejudices. Acknowledging this fact promotes rather than hinders discussion.

Your link, I think, supports my view rather than yours. The inclusion of abortion in "Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi" seems to be in response to a social situation. Of course the need to re-frame church discipline at that time was an attempt to increases the church's spiritual power as a response to the Pope's decline in temporal power and can be linked to other decrees, changes and religious movements. However church teaching on abortion can be traced back to the 4th century so it is difficult to sustain the view that pro-life teaching per se is an attempt to increase numbers or influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Fact: Canon law was changed in 1869 so that those who participate in abortions would be excommunicated. Assertion: this was part of a response to anti-Catholic sentiment and an attempt to increase its demographic, social and political position. Both of these are clearly your views. I am interested in where these views come from.

---

I could muster a veritable genealogy of historical textbooks to support my position. Instead I give you the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Pius IX:

The loss of his temporal power was only one of the many trials that filled the long pontificate of Pius IX. There was scarcely a country, Catholic or Protestant, where the rights of the Church were not infringed upon. (..) It is astounding how fearlessly he fought, in the midst of many and severe trials, against the false liberalism which threatened to destroy the very essence of faith and religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I could muster a veritable genealogy of historical textbooks to support my position. Instead I give you the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Pius IX:

The loss of his temporal power was only one of the many trials that filled the long pontificate of Pius IX. There was scarcely a country, Catholic or Protestant, where the rights of the Church were not infringed upon. (..) It is astounding how fearlessly he fought, in the midst of many and severe trials, against the false liberalism which threatened to destroy the very essence of faith and religion.

---

Perhaps I need to remind you what you have claimed:

• Abortion was not an issue for the Catholic church until about 1870
• The church's interest in abortion was primarily demographic rather than moral
• The Catholic church changed its position on abortion

It is true that Pius IX introduced took steps to increase his spiritual influence and react to liberalism and demographic and political considerations would have been part of this. His steps included formalising Papal infalibility and the doctrine of the immaculate conception and calling the First Vatican Council. Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi was part of his strategy; it formalised disciplinary procedures (and yes, this did formalise a punishment for participating in abortion). If you read my previous post, you will see I agree that this is what happened. If the Bull dealt with abortion only or even primarily, then your case is made. However this is not so.

You do need to consult that veritable genealogy of text books to find some evidence that the church's teaching abortion specifically (rather than Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi in general) was motivated by demographic considerations. I think you might even struggle to find evidence that ASM was a response to demographic issues rather than political and social considerations. You might also want to check whether the church changed its teaching on abortion in 1869 or whether it changed the penalty to be applied. While you're at it you might like to try and find when the church changed its actual teaching on abortion if it did at all (btw I think it has but not in 1869 and for scientific rather than demographic reasons).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Perhaps I need to remind you what you have claimed:

• Abortion was not an issue for the Catholic church until about 1870
• The church's interest in abortion was primarily demographic rather than moral
• The Catholic church changed its position on abortion

---

I claimed that abortion was not a problem until about 1870. It had always been an issue. In 1869 the Vatican scrapped the hitherto accepted view that abortion was not a deadly sin before 'ensoulment' or quickening. That marked a change, whether you like it or not. And physicians played an important role in it as I demonstrated.

Abortion became a problem - along with other moral, social, political and hierarchical issues - because the Church lost much of it temporal power and sought to reaffirm its spiritual power. Where the Church could no longer rely on kings and emperors as guarantors of the faith, it had to rely on social and political movements and institutions. The control of social life (through corporatism) was one aspect of this spiritual Aggiornamento, the control of Catholic family life and reproduction was another. Political interference (for instance through the Catholic Movement in Italy) was a third.

The stance against abortion, contraception, divorce, premarital sex and other forms of sexual liberation fits right in, just as the Immaculate Heart drive or the resurgence of Thomism which put faith over reason (meaning the Vatican turned its back on all intellectual progress).

Interestingly, the Vatican would soon demand a 'family wage' in order to keep women off the labour market.

Well let's have a look at your first post, the one that I called you for bias on:

Quote:

---

Abortion was not a problem, not even an issue in the Catholic Church until about 1870, when the numbers of believers in major Catholic countries in Europe began to decrease and the Church needed to revitalize. Only then did abortion become a 'moral issue' for Rome. The Maria cult was also part of this strategy of revitalisation.

---

Seems to me you used the word "issue" twice. The Catholic Church has changed its view on abortion before and after quickening. The very early church had no distinction between the two but St Augustine promoted the idea that abortion before quickening was less serious. Even at that time, though, promoting a miscarriage at any time (and indeed any form of contraception or sexual practices that prevented conception) was viewed as a serious matter. The seriousness of pre-quickening abortions declined for the next 500 years. However in the 16th and 17th centuries the pendulum swung back with pre-animation abortions being viewed as more and more serious as time passed. However distinct penalties for pre-animation and post-animation abortions did persist until 1869.

In Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi the church formalised deliberations by theologians and the medical profession (doctors had been challenging the notion of animation since the seventeenth and not the nineteenth century). The rest of ASM was, as you say, a response to declining temporal power. However the church's "stance against abortion, contraception, divorce, premarital sex and other forms of sexual liberation" does not "fit in" with this. At the time these things were also condemned by mainstream thought. Divorce, contraception and pre-marital sex were all frowned upon and abortion and homosexuality were illegal in most countries. "Problems" in these areas have arisen as mainstream thought has diverged from church teaching.

Your suggestion that the church promoted a family wage to keep women out of the labour market and the implication that somehow this was an idea unique to the Catholic church are inaccurate. The notion was to promote a new model of family life where children made less of an economic contribution and benefited more from nurturing and development, primarily by their mothers. Thus mothers and not women were to be removed from the labour market not as a means in itself but so that they could undertake this family role. This, again, was a mainstream idea with many manifestations: outlawing small children working in factories, universal primary education etc. In fact you could make an argument that a change in view of children from economically useful family members to precious gifts that require care and nurture is what caused an dramatic increase in abortion rates.

Your suggestion that the church introduced new teaching on sexual morality and the role of women in order to exercise control over the faithful has no merit. Neither does the idea that the church's view on these matters presented a problem in the late 19th century. However you are correct in saying that there was a change in the way that church discipline and mass religious movements (including devotion to Mary) were viewed. The former was tightened and the latter were given greater encouragement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

"Problems" in these areas have arisen as mainstream thought has diverged from church teaching.

---

That is exactly my point. I am glad you recognize the change in stance with regard to abortion, as well as the part played by physicians. The 'epidemic' rise in abortions, enabled by advancing medicine which made birth control a regular option for women instead of the desperate measure it used to be, was just as much a thread to the Church as the rise of liberalism, republicanism, socialism or atheism. It wasn't so much the number of (Catholic) children aborted that caused the alarm, it was the increase in individual autonomy and reproductive choice that this implied, and it consequences for the survival of the Catholic family.

Sorry for the confusion I created over the term 'issue'. Abortion, contraception &cetera were always issues in the sense of theological topics. Around 1870 they became contentious areas -- battlegrounds so to speak -- for a Church that discovered the Catholic family as one of its indispendable mainstays in a gradually liberalising society, just as it discovered the need for Catholic political movements as another mainstay after its loss of temporal power and of support from crowned heads.

I think where we disagree is in the matter of timing. Your first paragraph could represent an excellent critique of Humanae Vitae rather than Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi. It was the 1960's not the 1860's which saw the medical advances which allowed the increase in reproductive choice. That's when abortion and much more so contraception became problems for the church. Back in the 1860's the church's position was in line to the accepted view. Of course progressive and intellectual thought might have been at variance with the Catholic viewpoint but it was a long time before this was translated into a change in public morals, majority opinion and legislation.

I don't think you are right in attributing the rise in abortions in the mid-19th Century to improved medical techniques. I am not an expert on this, but I suspect the techniques used did not significanlty change at this time. The causes were partly to do with a change in the view of childhood as I described before and partly due to increased urbanisation. Rural communities were able to apply pressure to un-wed couples to refrain from pre-marital sex and, where this failed, to marry if pregnancy was the result. As populations shifted to towns, age-old informal structures broke down resulting in an increase in pregnancies that were both a burden and for which there were fewer pressures for fathers to take responsibility.

Perhaps you would agree that sexual behaviour was something that the Church felt the need to control rather than something the church wanted to use as a means of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

I don't think you are right in attributing the rise in abortions in the mid-19th Century to improved medical techniques.

---

If we look at one of the sources I discussed, I think Horatio Robinson Storer saw the (perceived) rise in abortions in his day as the result both of (perceived) moral decay and of the increased availability of 'safe' methods and qualified personnel. An important complaint of his was that more and more doctors were willing to perform 'safe' abortions, as opposed to the previous near-monopoly of midwifery and quackery in this field. Abortion and contraception became a serious option for women that was more or less openly discussed and advertised in the nineteenth century and sometimes demanded by 'libertarian' husbands.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you would agree that sexual behaviour was something that the Church felt the need to control rather than something the church wanted to use as a means of control.

---

Seen against the background of the spirit of the times, I think not. Generally speaking all authorities in the nineteenth century (states, scientists, politicians, religious establishments, secular moralists) wanted to control birth rates, marriage, education levels and all sorts of related demographic phenomena in society. Some of these concerns may have been humane, but in most cases the byword was control. All political movements and religious denominations progressively tried to seclude their members or followers within homogenous communities, restricted by internal regulation and sustained by exclusive charities. In some countries (Great Britain, the U.S., Switzerland, Austria, The Netherlands) this process resulted in the establishment of virtual parallel societies of Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and (Classic) Liberals within the same nation.

Population numbers were a recurrent obsession of the time. France was obsessed with its (supposed) falling birth rates, particularly in comparison with those of Germany. Victorian England was obsessed with its (supposed) Malthusian population surge, the U.S. with its massive New Immigration and countries like Germany, (British) Ireland and (Vienna-partitioned) Poland with their complementary massive emigration to the United States. Catholic minorities in the U.S. and in the German states, Switzerland or The Netherlands wanted to increase their demographic presence in order to increase their political impact.

In the nineteenth century sexual behavior was generally regarded as a means to control other variables. In the case of the Church of Rome as well as various Protestant denominations it was used to (re)define the position of women in the deeply misogynic tradition exemplified by Mosaic law (male ownership of women and children) and the Church fathers' views of women (for instance Aquinas' teaching that females were misbegotten male embryos whose insufficiency resulted from the debility of the father). Other currents were far from exempt by the way. Socialism shared some of the worst misogynic views; Friedrich Engels' monography on working class life in Britain for instance was as male-centred as any report of the period. The same applied within Liberal circles where Mill's view on the liberation of women was all but commonplace.