davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Melbourne and Moloch

Readers should be aware that this article has been updated with an update, clarification and apology. Please do not read this article without also reading the update article.

Once again, a group of Anglicans have bowed down and worshiped Moloch. This time they’re from the Diocese of Melbourne here in Australia. The Australian State of Victoria, of which Melbourne is the principal city, is currently reviewing its abortion legislation. Eager to show the world what they think, the ArchBishop put together a work group to make a submission.

The full text of the submission can be found here [pdf].Here’s just some of the highlights for you:

First, the foreword from the ArchBishop.

The Anglican Church in Melbourne does not have a definitive viewpoint on abortion. From within the Melbourne Diocese I convened a think tank of women representing a wide range of opinion on the issue, to advise me on the submission. Their report constituted, in effect, a consensus opinion.

First, you can’t have failed to have spotted that there were only women on the working group. That decision on its own should let you know the prejudices of those running this show. But the assertion that the report is “a consensus opinion” is complete baloney.

We were put onto this story about a week ago because of this outrageous claim. The truth of the matter is that two members of the group resigned rather than have their name put on the report. As we go on you’ll see why that is. Those women, a source very close to them has told me, have been the subject of persistent harassment since then because of their refusal to sign the report. When the Bishop claims that this is a consensus he is either massively mistaken (and quite ignorant of the workings of the group that he convened) or lying to us. Our source tells us that the women named in the report are “hardly representative of the broad range of opinion in the Diocese”.

Readers will be very familiar with the way the argument is progressed…

On ethical and many other issues, Anglicans typically take a middle-ground approach based on our understanding of Scripture in the light of the teachings and history of the Church and of human reasoning.

They tell us this….

However, the Anglican Church is for life, in the sense that our religious faith teaches a profound respect for all of the life that God has created,

but somehow you know that’s not going to turn into a call for the protection of all the life that God has created, don’t you?
Next, this will tickle you:

Historically, the wider Anglican Communion has said very little on abortion. The 10-yearly Lambeth Conference of Bishops last discussed abortion in 1930 when it passed a resolution which stated ‘The conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion’. (The same conference cautiously approved the use of contraception.).

That’s right, talking about ‘abhorrence of the sinful practice’ is, we’re told, saying “very little”. That was nicely dealt with.

Along the way we get this:

Although there are no specific biblical texts addressing therapeutic or induced abortion…

Can someone explain to me what therapeutic abortion is?

Next we see some of the argumentation…

The biblical vision presents the possibility of human beings living without violence or injustice, a world in which all life is embraced as the gift of a benevolent, self-giving God. This is a vision of a world, as yet not fully realised, where women are never violated or coerced, where children are always made welcome, where parents raise their children in a supportive and loving community; where forgiveness, understanding and reconciliation are available for all peoples; and where the needy, the poor and the vulnerable are given preferential treatment .This is the ideal; in the less than ideal circumstances in which we live, we realise that difficult moral decisions often have to be made. Further, we recognise that the Bible is a collection of texts written in a world without our modern medical practices and so does not speak specifically to the ease and safety with which a pregnancy may be terminated today. There were methods in the ancient world for dealing with unwanted pregnancies, indicating that the issue is not a new or exclusively contemporary one.

That’s a doozy. The Biblical view of perfect peace is held out as an unattainable goal and therefore not something to be pursued with all our vigour because this is a difficult world. Would these same women argue that we don’t try as hard with the needy, the poor, the vulnerable in general because there is still sin in the world? Of course not, it’s an inconsistently applied standard.

This is logic 101.

And, once again, the Bible is sidelined because is does not “speak specifically” into this situation. I know. Some of you at this point are jumping up and down begging to quote from Psalm 139. It will do you know good because this report talks about the Bible but doesn’t actually quote it. Not once. Here is a body commissioned by the ArchBishop to represent the church and they never visibly open up the Bible. Ultimately, they just

pretend

that it’s their authority, paying it lip service.

I’ll leave to you to read the rest of it [pdf], unless you’re a sensitive sort - in which case I wouldn’t advise it. It’s pretty upsetting stuff as this group ignore 2000 years of Catholic understanding and consign thousands of unborn, the most vulnerable of our society (female or otherwise) to the abortionists.

And if you thought that was bad enough, at the end of his introduction the Archbishop writes this:

The Working Group which prepared the submission below is currently working on a document of Pastoral and Liturgical Guidelines on Abortion, which is expected to be made available to churches in 2008.

Oh joy! Can you imagine this travesty being turned into liturgy?

Posted by on 01/31 at 06:04 PM

  1. David,

    Therapeutic abortions are those done before the viability of the foetus in order to preserve the health of the mother.

    http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3311.htm has the above definition, but expands it significantly:

    “Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. In its broadest definition, therapeutic abortion can be performed to (1) save the life of the mother, (2) preserve the health of the mother, (3) terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with defects incompatible with life or associated with significant morbidity, (4) terminate a nonviable pregnancy, or (5) selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy.“

    For me (5) seems outside the scope of ‘therapeutic’.

    If you’re technical, therapeutic abortions are distinguished from ‘elective’ abortions by the health aspect - they are done to preserve (in some way) the health of the mother. Admittedly they’re rare, approx 20% of all abortions in the US, and lots of definitions incorrectly lump them all together as synonyms (such as wikipedia), subsumed under the general category of induced abortions (i.e. those done intentionally with medical intervention, as opposed to spontaneous abortions or miscarriages).

    It’s unclear whether the report is equating the two or distinguishing them - if we’re generous, assume that they are distinct. Their point is that neither case is found in Scripture, for good or for ill.

    Posted by Sam on 01/31 at 06:49 PM

  2. thanks Sam.

    Posted by on 01/31 at 07:24 PM

  3. “We were put onto this story about a week ago because of this outrageous claim. The truth of the matter is that two members of the group resigned rather than have their name put on the report. As we go on you�ll see why that is. Those women, a source very close to them has told me, have been the subject of persistent harassment since then because of their refusal to sign the report.“

    This is very disturbing. Can it be independently verified in some way (e.g. list of original committee members vs list of submitting committee members?)

    Posted by on 01/31 at 08:09 PM

  4. hello, saint.

    I’m doing my best to verify. I’ll have something as soon as I can.

    Posted by on 01/31 at 08:18 PM

  5. Thanks David.

    Posted by on 02/01 at 06:02 PM

  6. Regarding the 2 women who pulled out.

    Please note that the names of these women are known by some, but are being carefully guarded. I think there are good reasons for this. My information is that this has been a very painful and traumatic experience for them, and they need some time to recover in private. Thus, it would be best if they are not pressured into speaking out—much as we would all like them to. God willing, they will speak out when they are ready.

    BTW, if you look carefully, the submission says that 8 women were involved. But when you count the actual names, there are only 7. So even the submission itself makes it clear that something dodgy has happened, and the so-called “consensus” is a farce.

    Posted by on 02/01 at 10:36 PM

  7. Thanks again David. All strength to them.

    Posted by on 02/02 at 07:36 AM

  8. Oops should have said thanks Jareth.

    Posted by on 02/02 at 07:57 AM

  9. The liberals hit back.
    https://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=news&news_id=10834&s=1040

    Note the blatant lies:
    “A think tank of eight women, by invitation from Archbishop Freier, made the submission in December [sic]. “

    ““The Diocese of Melbourne does not easily reach a consensus on abortion”, [Archbishop Freier] said. “The report of the think tank is the consensus view of the group which carefully considered the theological, pastoral, ethical and moral viewpoints.“

    It was not the “consensus” of the group, and neither did “eight” women make the submission.

    Ms Penny Mulvey (chair)
    Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke
    Dr Janet Duke-Warner
    Canon Dr Colleen O’Reilly
    Archdeacon the Ven Alison Taylor
    Dr Muriel Porter
    Ms Jane Still

    That is 7 names. 1 is missing. Unless “consensus” means something other than what I think it means, this Archbishop is a liar.

    Posted by on 02/04 at 06:54 PM

  10. thanks jereth. I think the language of “Liar” so blatantly is, as yet, a little overstated. I want to be generous and suppose that this has all rather escaped the ArchBishop’s control. At this stage I’d still like to think it was ignorance and navety rather than dishonesty.

    Either way it’s still a disaster. I’m horrified that he could have put his name to it.

    Posted by on 02/04 at 07:20 PM

  11. Hi David,
    The contents of the report don’t surprise me, not with Muriel Porter on the committee. Back in 2004, I remember that the then Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Watson, wrote an article (mildly) criticising abortion. MP wrote a response that made her attack on Sydney Anglicans in The New Puritans look balanced by comparison.

    Posted by on 02/04 at 08:23 PM

  12. Personally, I have tried very hard to give Archbishop Freier the benefit of the doubt. I have repeatedly told myself (and others) that he has probably had the wool pulled over his eyes by the liberals on the think tank, who have tricked him into thinking that there truly is a consensus.

    However, the longer this goes on, I am finding it harder and harder to be convinced of this. Surely he must realise by now (after receiving dozens of letters, including a very polite and respectful one from myself) that there is no “consensus”. How can he go on using that word? Why won’t he just be honest and admit that there is no consensus, and that hundreds of Anglicans have been deeply hurt by this VLRC submission?

    Posted by on 02/05 at 07:06 AM

  13. Thanks Roger, you are indeed correct. Former Archbishop Watson came out strongly against abortion in 2004, in an article printed in The Melbourne Anglican and in The Age newspaper.
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/05/1091557991339.html

    And here is Dr Porter’s antagonistic response:
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/09/1092022399318.html

    Posted by on 02/06 at 06:40 AM

  14. those of you following this article and comments should note that there is an update that I have written.

    Please do go read it.

    Posted by on 03/01 at 10:31 AM
    15. Page 1 of 1 pages

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main

Statistics

This page has been viewed 107973 times
Page rendered in 0.8368 seconds
Total Entries: 877
Total Comments: 3530
Total Trackbacks: 96
Most Recent Entry: 11/19/2008 01:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 11/18/2008 01:54 pm
Total Members: 5
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 12
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 11/20/2008 05:43 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am

Referrers

Bloggapedia, Blog Directory - Find It! Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory Find Blogs in the Blog Directory Blogs Directory Blogging Fusion Blog Directory

Powered by ExpressionEngine