< Back to front page Text size – +

African bishop: abortion not only issue

E-mail|Link|Comments (14) Posted by Michael Paulson October 13, 2008 12:41 PM

The indefatigable John L. Allen Jr., a senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, is churning out revealing interviews with leading Catholic bishops gathered in Rome for the Synod of Bishops. Among the most interesting: a prominent African bishop, Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan (left) of Abuja, Nigeria, tells Allen that if he were American, he would vote for Barack Obama, despite the Democrat's support for abortion rights. An excerpt from Onaiyekan:

“The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life. You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions through war, through poverty, and so on...Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life. I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent. If my choice is between a person who makes room for abortion, but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death. It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything. You always have to pick and choose.”

This morning Allen filed an interview with a leading American prelate, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas (right) of Tucson, who is the vice-president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Kicanas describes the American bishops' position this way: "To vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ." But, he says, the American bishops are divided over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should receive Communion, and he suggested that the issue turns on the unresolved question of whether a vote for legislation that provides access to abortion constitutes "formal cooperation" with abortion. Kicanas also reflected on the newly controversial question of whether it is strategically realistic for anti-abortion groups to continue to focus on legislative change, or whether it would be more effective for them to attempt to influence public behavior. An excerpt from Kicanas:

"Someone told me once that they think the legislative question is lost, both in terms of same-sex marriage and in terms of abortion, and that what the church should be focusing its energies on is changing the thinking in order to lead people not to choose abortion. I certainly think there’s some importance to that. We may find ourselves hamstrung in terms of our capacity to change legislation, or the thinking of legislators. Yet we can still work to make our teaching more influential in changing people’s thinking, helping them to see that there are alternatives, there are opportunities to find support, whether it’s financial or whatever – whatever the pressing concern is that leads to a decision as a difficult as it is, to abort a child. I think we need to do both, in some ways. I don’t think we can give up on the legislative challenge, but I think we have to work more intensively to try to change the thinking of people, to help them understand why the church teaches what it does."

« Back to front page

14 comments so far...

Should politicians who support the death penalty receive communion?

Same question for politicians who support (declare, continue funding and advocate the continuation of) an unjust war.

What about about a governor who says they support abortion rights but has no opportunity to vote on abortion, but does have an opportunity to act on the death penalty and vetoes legislation reinstating it?

Or another governor who says they oppose abortion but during their term allows many convicts to be executed without commuting their sentences to life imprisonment or introducing legislation to eliminate capital punishment?

Posted by Bruce October 13, 08 04:48 PM

I am so a very happy that someone of my elk has hit it right on the head. It is tiresome to hear that a person is Pro-Life, while espousing WAR which brings death and untold tragedy to countries years after the fighting has stopped. God Bless the anointing that Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan is gifted with.

Posted by Evanglist Branch October 13, 08 04:59 PM

War, execution, and abortion result in death. There are reasons for people to justify them all. Some that die are innocent, some are not. Abortion is different in that innocent people are purposely put to death. You can wage war with noble intentions to rid the world of a horrible enemy like Hitler. In such a war you can go to great lengths to avoid killing innocent people. In abortion innocent people are killed on purpose. WIth execution you are ridding society of scum that are cruel killers and rapists. If an innocent person is killed it is a mistake. With an abortion, innocent people are killed on purpose.

I am surpised that clerics do not understand this obvious difference. That is one of many reasons why it is good that our country separates church and state.

Posted by Richard October 13, 08 08:58 PM

"In such a war you can go to great lengths to avoid killing innocent people"

Oh, like the fireboming of Dresden by the Allies in WW II? Please, murder is murder. If our "just war" against the Nazis hadn't crossed the line before Dresden, it certainly did then. How much more so does our attacks on civilian targets in Iraq?

Anyone who thinks that our current war is not outright murder is a fool.

Posted by Bob October 14, 08 03:05 AM

I think a more apt comparison would be Abortion to the German genocide in WWII.
The German general population pretended not to know what was going on while certain ethic groups were targeted for elimination. In abortion more than million human lives are killed each year in a horrific manner while society looks the other way. Maybe Dresden was punishment for tacit approval of genocide, who knows. I do agree that both war and abortion are abominations, but not morally equivalent.

Posted by Steve October 14, 08 07:50 AM

The firebombing of Dresden does not undermine the justice and righteousness of WWII. The argument should be is the current war just and can a politician who supports the current war but is against abortion be voted for over a politician who is against the war but pro-choice. Ultimately 1) what is more evil, abortion or the current war and 2) what will this politician have a greater chance of changing/affecting.

Posted by Brendan October 14, 08 10:13 AM

Life begins at 3 months according to science. You have a right to believe otherwise b/c of your faith but you do not have to right to legislate your beliefs. Separation of church and state. Can we please go back to the Republican party that wasn't highjacked by the Evangelicals?

Posted by Rational October 14, 08 11:51 AM

Okay, let's have the facts speak. In America, we have aborted over 50 million babies since Roe v. Wade. Other countries as well are perpetrating this despicable evil. Despite your view on the Iraq war, the number of dead by the choice for abortion is far, far greater than the number of dead in this war. And the sad thing is it's protected by law.

When 6 million Jews were exterminated in WWII, the world was rightly outraged. And when Iran says today it didn't happen, the world is still rightly outraged. Where is the outrage over 50 million abortions in the US alone? On per capita basis, other countries have a higher rate of abortion than the US. Where is the outrage on for this?

Posted by Dennis October 14, 08 11:58 AM

I find it ironic that all of the anti-abortion rhetoric is posted by men...(Dennis, Bruce, Bob etc.) When men can become pregnant, abortion will become a sacrament!

Posted by Sophie October 14, 08 01:07 PM

Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for either McCain or Obama since both support policies that are intrinsically evil -- abortion on demand, in Obama's case, and preemptive war in McCain's. There is NO candidate in this election that Catholics can support and they should stay home.

Posted by Don October 14, 08 01:45 PM

A First
A rational statement from the hierarchy

Posted by Jake October 14, 08 02:23 PM

Right on, Sophie!
I am a life long Catholic, and I would never abort a baby; but that doesn't mean that everyone in the universe has to agree with my church or my opinion. The Church on earth, after all, is run by man. Man is imperfect, as is the Catholic Church. All we have from God is the 10 Commandments. Everything else was written by man 2000 years ago. The Church has committed many wrongs of its own. The two greatest commandments recited by Jesus is to Love the Lord thy God, and to Love thy neighbor.as thyself Those are two that I'm following.

Posted by Cafeteria Catholic October 14, 08 03:58 PM

Sophie: Agree with them or not, I don’t think that it is ironic that several men have written in expressing their views on the importance of protecting innocent life, whatever its form. What might be ironic is that some women, and men, consistently treat abortion as a purely woman’s issue. This - despite the fact that men are involved in every pregnancy, that these men will be as legally and morally responsible as the mother for the well being and support of the child and that a lot of aborted children are male.

I'm pretty sure that none of the men you mention had a role in deciding how humans procreate. Women get pregnant and have the very substantial task of bringing the new child into the world. I am not minimizing that in any way. Nor can I apologize for it (I wasn’t consulted either). Regardless, the fact is that abortion is a human issue.

Cafeteria: Of course the Church has made mistakes, as has every other institution in history. I don’t agree with every single one of its teachings, either (and, no, I am not Republican). However, that doesn’t mean that It is never right. To love thy neighbor as thyself is, as you say, a great commandment. Therefore, if someone considers children before birth to be some of those neighbors (probably the most liberal interpretation), perhaps speaking out on their behalf is not as strange as it may appear.

I can relate to this issue… a few years ago, I was one-half of a couple faced with a very inopportune pregnancy. Luckily, we agreed that, once pregnant, that was it – a baby was on the way. A couple of years later my son’s mother opted out. But, at least he was alive. I now am a single dad to a phenomenally cute, smart and caring handful of a 3½ year old. Was it how I planned it? No. Did my career, social life and sleep suffer in the short term? Absolutely. Would I change a thing? Not on your (or my son’s) life!

Posted by Independent October 14, 08 05:26 PM

Sir...what ever is possessing you? Have you ever seen or studied an abortion?
Have you ever dealt with women who have had an abortion and are completely
messed up? You are a shame to the Catholic Church...check around... it is we
the pro life to the core the ones that are helping the poor, helping the missions,
caring for the neglected in society. MAY GOD FORGIVE YOU...You are responsible
for all the souls you are misleading! You are acting like a demon...you still have a
chance to repent and back track your support of Obama.

Posted by Carmen M. Cartaya October 17, 08 08:52 PM

You must be logged in to submit a comment.

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

Blogger

Michael Paulson covers religion for The Boston Globe. He shared in the Pulitzer Prize in 2003, won the Mike Berger, Templeton and Supple awards in 2008, and is a four-time winner of the Wilbur Award.
E-mail mpaulson@globe.com.

Articles of Faith on Twitter

Follow GlobePaulson on Twitter

views

Harvey Cox, the Hollis professor of divinity at Harvard University, marks his retirement by asserting a little-used right of his professorship -- to graze a cow in Harvard Yard. Photo, by Barry Chin of the Globe staff, taken on Sept. 10, 2009 in Cambridge, Mass.