A Church of HypocritesRemember in school when we were taught about collective nouns? You know, these are words which define a, um, collective like, say a group of animals, people, or inanimate objects: a
congress of baboons, a
company of actors, or a
quiver of arrows. Well, well, well. Looking at the headlines today over at inquirer.net, you know what a collective of hypocrites should be called? A
church.
The headline which stuck in my craw was '
Anti-life pols must be refused communion.' The item explains that Ozamiz Archbishop Jesus Dosado has issued a pastoral letter denying Holy Communion to Catholic politicians if they have pursued a campaign for and endorse "permissive abortion." On what basis should these politicians be denied the Holy Eucharist? Because they are "in a situation of sin." Oh, snap! No, he did-ent! Tell me he didn't go with a reasoning so abstract that its very ambiguity boggles the mind and therefore leaves anyone who hears it scratching his head. I am sorry, your Excellency. You have disarmed me by frying my brain and I'm therefore unable to come up with a witty comeback.
Or maybe I don't have to. Another Church-related news item had the following headline: "
Pope's Australia visit to be marked by sex abuse apology."
Well, let's try to put the phrase into its proper context. The objects of His Excellency's enmity are 48 legislators who have co-authored a bill in Congress called "An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development." The Church deems that the bill promotes permissive abortion and and is anti-life. However, the principal author of the bill, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, says that a closer inspection of the proposed law would show that the Church's estimation of the bill is totally wrong as it does not espouse permissive abortion at all. I love the way Rep. Lagman refers to the Archbishop's missive: "It’s a grave penalty for a phantom act."
Okay, so Dosado did clarify that denying communion is not a sanction but rather "it is a reaction to a person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion because of an 'objective situation of sin.' " Further, "that a person was in an objective situation of sin if he paved the way for people to commit abortion, or if he provided opportunities for abortion to be done." Well notwithstanding Rep. Lagman's assurance that the bill does not promote permissive abortion, the fucking thing has not even been passed yet. So, how can the legislators be complicit to anyone getting an abortion at this point? It just galls me that the Church is already punishing people for non-existent crimes basing this on bullshit semantics like "situation of sin" while at the same time, its head has to apologize for past sexual crimes most execrable.
I am a Catholic. Rather, I was born a Catholic. The Church's stance on abortion is just one of many hot-button issues which I find anachronistic -- along with prohibiting women to be priests and priests to marry. But who listens to me, right? I'm just saying that an organization composed of exclusively men cannot dictate laws which would only impact women. My opinion is if you don't have a uterus, shut the fuck up on abortion. And all this bullshit talk about the sanctity of life and when does it begin, I defer to one of my personal heroes: The late, great George Carlin. As hard as I try, I have never come across a fitting counter-argument to what he said about abortion:
"If a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?' "
PS: Just one other thing to consider, the news item on Dosado also contained the following:
"Reuters said that in 2000, women in the country had more than 473,000 induced abortions, translating to a rate of 27 abortions per 1,000 women. The average rate in the United Sates was 20."
Isn't this absolutely shocking? This could mean that there were about a half million Filipinas in 2000 who had to resort to back-door specialists -- exposing them to unsanitary conditions and complications such as bleeding, infections, and damage to internal organs, or even the ultimate risk, death. This is because a group of individuals with penises think they know better.