Sister Sandra Schneiders, a theologian at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, argues that this emphasis on abortion is recent. It's not mentioned in Scripture, for centuries there was no agreement on when "ensoulment" occurred, and there are no funeral rites for the 20-50 percent of miscarried fetuses. Perhaps it is not clear than an abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy is as grave as in the last? Townsend repeats the now well-known story of how Pope Paul VI rejected the overwhelming consensus of the Birth Control Commission he had established that the teaching should change to allow birth control under certain circumstances, and she lists and refutes the standard arguments on why women cannot be ordained. But she reserves her final arguments for her fellow members of the Christian Left who seem to have withdrawn from the battlefield. Much as I share her analysis, I have two constructive criticisms for her. Take into account two recent articles on abortion politics in Commonweal (April 20) and the New York Times (June 22) by Melinda Henneberger, who says: Democrats are killing themselves by their blind, knee-jerk support of issues like partial birth abortion, as if "choice," not common respect for the child, was the only issue. And even conservatives like Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver will admit, under questioning, that: "Do I think there are people in the last election who voted for pro-choice candidates and did so sincerely after reflection and prayer? Yes, I do. Did they do wrong? No, they followed thier conscience. But that serious reflection and prayer, that's really important, and not just being swayed by party sympathies or that's the way you always vote. It has to be about issues."Original article (here)
2 comments:
I find this entry very misleading. You headline Sr. Sandra Schneiders, IHM, and enter her picture. Your first sentences would seem to be directly from her, though by indirect discourse or indirect quotation. Your sentence beginning "Townsend" then threw me completely. I asked myself, "Who is Townsend? - I thought we were talking about Sandra Schneiders?" It was not until I hit the link to Scroth's article that I discovered what was really going on: that you were really talking about Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's book, and not about Sandra Schneiders! Sandra only came into Scroth's article indirectly - one of the persons Townsend consulted re abortion. All the rest of your entry is also Townsend's thinking and expression, as given us by the reporting of Raymond Schroth (a very reliable reporter, I think), and not necessarily Sandra Schneiders' at all. If you are going to headline Sandra Schneiders and relate her thought on issues, I think Sandra would prefer to be quoted directly. Certainly it doesn't seem fair to attribute to her the thought of Ms Townsend, even if Townsend had consulted her.
Pretty cool place you've got here. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything that is connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.
Joan Kuree
Post a Comment