Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellin of Burgos is calling on Spaniards to practice civil disobedience. The new law on abortion is no law, he says, because lawmakers do not have the right to legislate to kill the innocent:
Let’s be clear: this law is not a law, although it is presented as such by some politicians and lawmakers. It is no law because nobody has the right to take the life of an innocent human being. For this reason it is not obligatory. Moreover, it demands direct opposition without distinction.
The archbishop went on to say it is a:
fallacy to assert that this law was passed by a majority in Parliament and that it represents the will of the majority of citizens, or if the Constitutional Court upholds it, that opposing it would be disobedient and would warrant sanction.”
“The fallacy consists in giving politicians, judges or citizens a right they do not have. And nobody has the right to legislate the killing of an innocent person.”
Catholicism Pure & Simple 
Thank you, thank you, Your Grace!
THIS is a Catholic Archbishop; courageous, loving the truth more than accomodation with the world, fearless for the Faith!
Spain under Zapatero has sought confrontation with the Church (which the socialist-liberals hate, and have done ever since the late 18th century) from Day One of his two terms in office. These are the same men, in essence, who killed tens of thosuands of priests, nuns and laity during the Civil War. Freemasonry is very strong in Spain (as it is here in Portugal).
What a terrible contrast our English and Welsh Bishops are in comparison! And if only we had 3,000 diocescan bishops like this man throughout the world. Hellin: I will remember the name.
Joyfulpapist, thank you for telling us about this.
Civil diobedience: didn’t St. Thomas, Teresa, mandate even violent resistance to evil if all else fails?
LikeLike
Lex injustitia non est lex.
LikeLike
The Raven, you mean lex iniusta?
Anyway I agree that, from a religious point of view, a Catholic should consider a secular government not legitimated to go against the Law of God.
But I wouldn’t want it to become a justification for every revolt to legally constituted authority, when it conflicts with out religious conviction. From there to al-Qaeda the step is very short.
M
LikeLike
That’s the way a bishop should be talking. I’m not sure that it constitutes a call to civil disobedience though – since the law does not say people must have abortions. (though it may deny healthcare workers the right to opt out of performing them?) From what was quoted he is leaving people in no doubt that government does not have the authority to pass unjust laws. The Archbishop is presumably calling on people to oppose this ‘law’ in the hope of getting it removed from the statute books, and good for him.
There will be those who say that once Parliament has spoken the matter should be regarded as settled and people should not cause trouble (though they never say that when it is their own causes that are defeated); but the Archbishop is right to speak out because there is a matter of sin involved. If a government tries to make people think that something sinful is perfectly OK then the Church not only has a right, but the duty to speak.
Well done!
LikeLike
Spanish Catholics who live their Faith are suffering a constant harassment under Zapatero and this present government. Unfortunately the media works hand-in-glove with the government, spilling out a constant anti-Catholic propaganda. It has done immense harm precisely because Spaniards are extordinarily influenced by TV!
The Church is on the whole brave and outspoken in Spain, and hence the clash. People are very divided, with practising Catholics strongly supporting their Bishops who they see as loyal to the Pope and Magisterium.
An anecdote:
My daughter lives and works in Madrid, teaching in an English-speaking school. One of her work companions is a Spanish left-wing fanatic who has been trying for years to conceive a child. In spite of working with children, she is a strong supporter of abortion. Now how does one begin to understand such a paradox?
LikeLike
It is a striking example of the human ability to believe two entirely opposing things at the same time. And a very sad one.
LikeLike
Yes, JP.
In T.S. Eliot’s memorable phrase: “cognitive dissonance”.
LikeLike
Ben, I don’t intend to re-fight the Civil War, (because the good guys would probably lose again) but Franco, like Stalin and Hitler, murdered several thousand people over what Montaigne called ‘a difference of opinion.’
Interesting that the Archbishop specifies ‘innocent’ human beings. OK to take the life of guilty ones I suppose.
AND… if you believe in original sin, surely nobody is ‘innocent.’
NICE in Avila, though. Looked for the hand of Saint Teresa, ( the one Franco toted around in a hand-bag) only to be told that it is in the convent of discalced Carmelites in Ronda.
Did see her ring finger, though – in a handsome finger-holder. Has a smart emerald ring still on it.
And KATHLEEN, although I am only guessing, I suspect the ‘left-wing fanatic’ may not actually be a big fan of abortion. She may simply believe it is an option in certain extreme circumstances. I don’t know. But YOU know. She is a ‘fanatic’ and you are not. Mustn’t call you un-Christian it seems. How about uncharitable, unforgiving, unyielding?
The way some people go on about it, you would think that some women sit around thinking, ”What shall I do do today? I can’t decide whether to go and get my hair done or have an abortion.”
I’ve said before on this blog, if doctors said to me it’s either your wife’s life, or the unborn baby’s, I would say kill the baby. Your husband might have other ideas.
Lucky there aren’t any ‘right-wing fanatics’ around…
LikeLike
toadspittle:
Leaving aside the offensive absurdities in your post, you’ve previously admitted that you don’t believe in truth.
So why should anyone pay any attention to anything you have to say?
LikeLike
Mundabor
Indeed I do mean “injusta” (never trust lawyers to remember their Latin without garbling it), thank you for the reminder.
LikeLike
Toadspittle,
extreme cases make bad law.
It is legitimate to intervene to save the life of the mother. If the child dies during an attempt to save the life of the mother, this is no abortion. Let me know if you have a problem with that.
Also could you please let me have your estimation of how many of the 200,000 abortions carried on in the UK every year is made to save the life of the mother.
M
LikeLike
“if you believe in original sin, surely nobody is ‘innocent.’”
You are more intelligent than this, toadspittle. This is below child’s reasoning.
LikeLike
Toadspittle
Like any civil war, the “good guys” weren’t playing during the Spanish Civil War and would have lost whichever side won (forgive me for a sentimental thought about the Basques for a moment), NKVD bullets are as health-giving as Falangist bullets and seemed to find pretty much the same targets.
As for “extreme circumstances”, it really depends on what you mean by “extreme”: if I was faced by the scenario that you’ve suggested (life of the mother vs life of the child) then I doubt that I’d ever feel good about the decision, no matter what I decided; but in most cases in the UK, “extreme” means “inconvenient”, I’m not denying that some people have heart-rending decisions to make in the light of their own moral codes (which may be radically different to those taught by the Church), but quite often the choice is made on grounds of “if I have this child I won’t be able to afford to spend money on things, or go on foreign holidays, or keep my commitment-shy BF”.
As the Abortion Act in the UK has shown, what starts out as a well meaning (but in my view utterly misguided) attempt to better the lives of a few has resulted in a situation where a school governor can tell me, in all seriousness, that it is morally neutral for his school to dish out morning-after pills like smarties (he looked at me blankly when I suggested that his charges might be better served by being taught to avoid having sex until they’d reached the legal age of consent in the UK).
LikeLike
Toad:
I’ve been to the Convent of St. Teresa at Avila. Great place.
LikeLike
omvendt says:
”Leaving aside the offensive absurdities in your post, you’ve previously admitted that you don’t believe in truth.
So why should anyone pay any attention to anything you have to say?”
I have never ‘admitted’ I don’t believe in truth. I have merely suggested that what is true in Saudi Arabia, for example, may not be true in Rome or Salt Lake City.
As to whether anyone should pay any attention to what I say, that’s up to them.
BEN: Went to the convent yesterday. Avila is a very underrated place, I think. Should get a great deal more visitors than it does. Though that would make it no so nice a place for me (or you).
LikeLike
toad:
In a previous post you said that “truth IS relative” or words to that effect, which is tantamount to saying that there is no truth.
LikeLike
Kathleen evidently lives in a different sort of Spain than I inhabit. I have never seen a Catholic “persecuted” since I came here to live.
The word “persecution” brings to mind Inquisitions, martyrdoms, turning people out of their homes and stealing their goods, etc., things which Spain was famous for in years past… under the beloved “Catholic Monarchs.” If contemporary Spanish Catholics feel put-upon by current politicos, perhaps they should follow the Burgos Divine´s exhortation and vote in the next election.
And Kathleen might reconsider her choice of words.
oh, as for the young woman who´d like to reproduce, but supports women´s legal rights to abortion? There´s a spittle for that:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” — Francois de La Rouchefoucald
LikeLike
Rebrites,
one thing is the ability to hold two opposite things in mind, another is to believe something and its contrary according to convenience.
The first is mental flexibility, the second is hypocrisy.
M
LikeLike
”omvendt says: July 15, 2010 at 14:23
In a previous post you said that “truth IS relative” or words to that effect, which is tantamount to saying that there is no truth.”
Well, of course I don’t think it ‘tantamount’ to any such thing. But, here’s a case in point which, I hope, will interest folk round here. We all like a bit of the diabolical, don’t we?
In Sunday’s El Pais’s colour magazine was a very interesting story on ‘The Legionaries of Christ,’ and their founder, Maciel. Down towards the end, is this paragraph:
”He (Macial) died surrounded by a handful of faithful followers. Padre Alfonso Corona, who had cared for him until the end, describes a death placid and pious. Another source affirms that Padre Luis Garza described the dying moments in a very different way:
”Some of those present detected a strange atmosphere, something demoniacal…”
Well, there you go. Two versions of the same story. Both true? One? Neither? Nietzsche says there are no truths, only interpretations. How true.
LikeLike
Am I correct in thinking that the notion of ‘truth’ is of considerable interest on here?
OMVENDT seems a bit grumpy with me over it. Fair enough.
I would like to know what it is myself.
Here are some things that seem true to me:
Dogs are good.
Marmite is delicious.
Graffiti is bad.
Fox news is bad.
One gin and tonic is good.
Six gin and tonics are bad.
It is true that the King of France is bald.
(forget that one, too complicated.)
Damian means well.
That’s enough truth for one day.
LikeLike