Friday, November 16, 2007

Response to O'Malley by College of the Holy Cross prof

Within hours of Cardinal O'Malley's remarks regarding pro-abortion leaders and Catholics who vote for them, "Catholic Studies" teacher David O'Brien hits back, in a column hosted by—who else—the Boston Globe.

The gist of the teacher's point seems to be a call for support of HR 6067: "a package of programs with broad support designed to prevent unwanted pregnancies and support parents and families."

Alas, mourns O'Brien, the Church won't support this legislation: "because the bill includes support for education about contraception."


Hey, teach? While realizing you're billed as a "professor of Catholic studies" at good o' Holy Cross, here's a newsflash for you (make sure you take notes here):

Artificial contraception, which is what you're talking about, interferes with human life—which, by the way, the Church considers sacred. Like your life, for example, and my life. The Church considers both sacred. Ditto the lives of the students you teach. Sacred. Got that? Good. Try and squeeze that in to your next course on "Catholic Studies," will ya? Thanks.

(By the way, does the bill you're shilling include anything on natural family planning?)

O'Brien concedes that:

"In practice the Catholic community reaches out to support women with unwanted pregnancies..."

Not just "in practice" but in fact. Small point but worth making. But evidently that's not enough because the rest of the sentence reads:

"...but when women with reservations about the church's position on abortion prevention attempted to address the hierarchy, they were firmly rejected."


Professor O'Brien. If I came to you with "reservations" about your right to teach, your right to tenure, your right to ride the bleepin' subway, for crying out loud, would you welcome me with open arms? I suspect I would be "firmly rejected."

Can anybody read the column and tell me what this guy is talking about? And explain to me what a professor in a supposedly Catholic college means by "common ground on abortion?"