The one month it took the stretched out and disparate Empire to line up its army to strike back is OK. But, even after such a lapse of time it mobilized its troops not from the Vatican, Italy, Ireland, countries in Central and South America, or any of its more overtly committed groups, but from the supposedly secular India. This kind of surprised me.
But on second thoughts, I think I should not have been surprised. The official machinery will ensure that its position, abortion is sin, will be appropriately polished to convey the message without actually conveying it. Remember, the Roman Catholic Church has not said that abortion is wrong. It says abortion is sin. I know I am repeating it, but it is necessary to make this distinction.
Isolating the head from the blame for its stupidity is par for the course for organizations and the Vatican is an organization if nothing else. The longer the chain to connect to the head the better it is. Hence India.
“Sin” has to be polished to “wrong” (only to be brushed under the carpet) and the task was given to one Mr. K J Alphons [1]. It is astounding that Alphons, “a former IAS officer and ex-MLA”, does not even acknowledge the Empire’s mistake, so thoroughly immersed in it he is.
Oh, there is this opening statement of mandatory espousal of sympathy: “It is a tragedy that the 31-year old Savita Halappanavar had to die [my emphasis] …in Ireland.” The article also says that Ireland “wears its Catholicism on its sleeve.” So, it is not in dispute that Savita died in a deeply Catholic country. But, here comes the twist. “The view of the Catholic Church is very clear: choose the lesser evil.” The assumption is there are two evils.
Let us try to extract what these could be. One, letting Savita die. This is straight forward as the author says that the church “commands that abortion must be done to save the life of the mother.” Let me not belabor the point that this is just an assertion with no annotations; surprising because any time religious tenets (the proxy for pronouncements of God) are evoked it is always by quoting chapter and verse, seeking legitimacy.
You must recall that the dog did not bark. So, in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes, I conclude that the assertion is more false than true. False and true are not binaries here because there is the question of interpretation of what God said, what He meant to say etc. I will allow that fuzziness. So gracious of me!
The second evil? Sacrificing the life of the unborn in the cause of the mother’s life. Sense the equation: the life of the unborn and the life of the living are equals; yet, the mother prevails. Unequal equals. It is so gracious of the Church (now Raghuram Ekambaram and the Roman Catholic Church are even stevens!) to admit that the mother has the higher priority.
This is not the place to ask what of the unborn life which is the result of a rape. After all, that question needs to be asked of the failed US Congress candidate Todd Akin!
Throughout the article there is not a single mention of the attitude of the people. The focus is on what the world community has said: “condemned the Catholic church for the existence of such archaic and barbaric laws.” We are none the wiser, upon reading the article, whether people of Ireland – the devout Catholics – are outraged at, merely concerned about, grinning and bearing, apathetic about, or actively endorsing what happened. Whatever the case may be, none can deny that their reactions would have been colored by the population’s religious leanings. Would people have agreed that Savita must be allowed to have abortion? This is why, whatever the law may say, the subject must be debated on religious grounds. The author sidesteps this inconvenience.
In trying to exonerate religion Alphons has also taken to blaming the “medical community” for not understanding “the law as it exists in Ireland.” In defending the religion, the medical profession becomes the scapegoat. In a sense, the, the medical profession is the Jesus Christ Lamb of the Vatican God [John 1:29]!
A big chunk of the article is a history of the development of Irish jurisprudence in the matter of abortion, sometimes forced by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Start with the constitution, the Eighth Amendment: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
I have a few questions. The concluding “that right” – does this refer to the life of the unborn, the mother or both? It is not clear and the article has been silent on how the constitutional provision has been interpreted, if at all, by the court. The next point, understand the phrase, “as far as practicable.” To my ears it sounded like the “Directive Principles of State Policy” of the Indian constitution! “We will try to follow what the constitution recommends, but there is no need to try very hard!” The author does not elaborate as to how this provision has been acknowledged / ignored by the State. If it was ignored, as is evident it was, can anyone explain why, but without taking recourse to religious strictures?
Coming down to the level of laws below the constitution, the author gives all the details including the timelines to support his claim that the Roman Catholic Church cannot be accused of murdering Savita. Yet, the author hedges: He asks rhetorically, “But can we put all [my emphasis] the blame on the Catholic Church?” He admits, then, at least some blame for Savita’s death must devolve upon the Church! But, the Church has not taken even an iota of responsibility. Then, where does the author stand? Is he pointing fingers at the institution he is defending? This is what happens when one tries to defend the indefensible!
What must impose a sardonic smile on the reader’s face is that the author dares to imply that even though a Catholic country, Ireland has progressed on the abortion issue; like “in 1957 an abortionist doctor was sent to the gallows after the death of a patient.” Of course, the medical professionals who refused Savita an abortion will not go to the gallows. If this is progress, I do not know how Ireland can rank “among the world’s most highly developed countries”? If people die on account of religion, and if their death is no stigma on society, a paragon of virtue that religion must be!
And, it is this religion Alphons rushes into defend; all the way from India to Ireland via the Vatican.
No wonder, the Church took its time defending itself.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Reference
1. Don't blame the church, K. J. Alphorns, The Hindu, November 27, 2012 (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/dont-blame-the-church/article4137479.ece)
But on second thoughts, I think I should not have been surprised. The official machinery will ensure that its position, abortion is sin, will be appropriately polished to convey the message without actually conveying it. Remember, the Roman Catholic Church has not said that abortion is wrong. It says abortion is sin. I know I am repeating it, but it is necessary to make this distinction.
Isolating the head from the blame for its stupidity is par for the course for organizations and the Vatican is an organization if nothing else. The longer the chain to connect to the head the better it is. Hence India.
“Sin” has to be polished to “wrong” (only to be brushed under the carpet) and the task was given to one Mr. K J Alphons [1]. It is astounding that Alphons, “a former IAS officer and ex-MLA”, does not even acknowledge the Empire’s mistake, so thoroughly immersed in it he is.
Oh, there is this opening statement of mandatory espousal of sympathy: “It is a tragedy that the 31-year old Savita Halappanavar had to die [my emphasis] …in Ireland.” The article also says that Ireland “wears its Catholicism on its sleeve.” So, it is not in dispute that Savita died in a deeply Catholic country. But, here comes the twist. “The view of the Catholic Church is very clear: choose the lesser evil.” The assumption is there are two evils.
Let us try to extract what these could be. One, letting Savita die. This is straight forward as the author says that the church “commands that abortion must be done to save the life of the mother.” Let me not belabor the point that this is just an assertion with no annotations; surprising because any time religious tenets (the proxy for pronouncements of God) are evoked it is always by quoting chapter and verse, seeking legitimacy.
You must recall that the dog did not bark. So, in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes, I conclude that the assertion is more false than true. False and true are not binaries here because there is the question of interpretation of what God said, what He meant to say etc. I will allow that fuzziness. So gracious of me!
The second evil? Sacrificing the life of the unborn in the cause of the mother’s life. Sense the equation: the life of the unborn and the life of the living are equals; yet, the mother prevails. Unequal equals. It is so gracious of the Church (now Raghuram Ekambaram and the Roman Catholic Church are even stevens!) to admit that the mother has the higher priority.
This is not the place to ask what of the unborn life which is the result of a rape. After all, that question needs to be asked of the failed US Congress candidate Todd Akin!
Throughout the article there is not a single mention of the attitude of the people. The focus is on what the world community has said: “condemned the Catholic church for the existence of such archaic and barbaric laws.” We are none the wiser, upon reading the article, whether people of Ireland – the devout Catholics – are outraged at, merely concerned about, grinning and bearing, apathetic about, or actively endorsing what happened. Whatever the case may be, none can deny that their reactions would have been colored by the population’s religious leanings. Would people have agreed that Savita must be allowed to have abortion? This is why, whatever the law may say, the subject must be debated on religious grounds. The author sidesteps this inconvenience.
In trying to exonerate religion Alphons has also taken to blaming the “medical community” for not understanding “the law as it exists in Ireland.” In defending the religion, the medical profession becomes the scapegoat. In a sense, the, the medical profession is the Jesus Christ Lamb of the Vatican God [John 1:29]!
A big chunk of the article is a history of the development of Irish jurisprudence in the matter of abortion, sometimes forced by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Start with the constitution, the Eighth Amendment: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
I have a few questions. The concluding “that right” – does this refer to the life of the unborn, the mother or both? It is not clear and the article has been silent on how the constitutional provision has been interpreted, if at all, by the court. The next point, understand the phrase, “as far as practicable.” To my ears it sounded like the “Directive Principles of State Policy” of the Indian constitution! “We will try to follow what the constitution recommends, but there is no need to try very hard!” The author does not elaborate as to how this provision has been acknowledged / ignored by the State. If it was ignored, as is evident it was, can anyone explain why, but without taking recourse to religious strictures?
Coming down to the level of laws below the constitution, the author gives all the details including the timelines to support his claim that the Roman Catholic Church cannot be accused of murdering Savita. Yet, the author hedges: He asks rhetorically, “But can we put all [my emphasis] the blame on the Catholic Church?” He admits, then, at least some blame for Savita’s death must devolve upon the Church! But, the Church has not taken even an iota of responsibility. Then, where does the author stand? Is he pointing fingers at the institution he is defending? This is what happens when one tries to defend the indefensible!
What must impose a sardonic smile on the reader’s face is that the author dares to imply that even though a Catholic country, Ireland has progressed on the abortion issue; like “in 1957 an abortionist doctor was sent to the gallows after the death of a patient.” Of course, the medical professionals who refused Savita an abortion will not go to the gallows. If this is progress, I do not know how Ireland can rank “among the world’s most highly developed countries”? If people die on account of religion, and if their death is no stigma on society, a paragon of virtue that religion must be!
And, it is this religion Alphons rushes into defend; all the way from India to Ireland via the Vatican.
No wonder, the Church took its time defending itself.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Reference
1. Don't blame the church, K. J. Alphorns, The Hindu, November 27, 2012 (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/dont-blame-the-church/article4137479.ece)
2 comments:
Isn't it interesting that Alphons, a man who contested the last elections in Kerala on the BJP ticket, is now rushing to defend the Catholic Church?
I too noticed, when I read it in the Hindu, that the article had nothing much to offer for a contemporary reader on the issue of abortion. Perhaps, Alphons could have borrowed the Situational Ethics of Joseph Fletcher!
Thanks for that "funny and incongruous" detail about Alphons. By the way, of what denomination is he? I do not know anything about Joseph Fletcher and Situational Ethics; perhaps I should read up.
As I see it, the article was all about finding scapegoats.
RE
Post a Comment