The ordination of women.

I have spent some time avoiding certain topics on this blog; some, because I do not have enough knowledge to speak with even the smallest amount of authority, and others because they are hot potatoes that can all too easily cause offence and hurt.

For the latter reason, I have avoided commenting on the myriad of problems that have beset the Catholic church recently. Yet I have finally had enough. What has so exercised my anger? Was it yet more evidence of cover-ups of sexual abuse within the church? No, that is, sadly, all too common. Another ruling on abortion? Again, that would hardly be surprising.

No, it is this article on the BBC news website.

Unbelievably, the Vatican has classified the ordination of women as being a 'grave crime' - the same category as sex abuse, schism and heresy. Whilst they say that this does not equate the 'crimes', putting ordination of women into the same category as sex abuse is a sickening act, and one that shows that they are totally detached from reality.

The Vatican's move is timed to put as much pressure as possible onto those Anglicans who are angry at the ordination of women and homosexuals. The pope has already offered a personal prelature to members of the Traditional Anglican Communion (a group of Anglican churches that are independent from Canterbury). They will be allowed to join the Catholic church, in a similar manner to Opus Dei. The Catholic church hopes that other churches and individual members will also leave the Anglican Communion.

I must admit to having had serious concerns about the ordaining of women bishops in the Anglican Communion. Not because I have any philosophical argument with it - indeed, I firmly believe that a church should reflect its full membership - male or female, black or white, straight or gay.

Rather, my concern lies with the risk of a schism in the Anglican Communion, and the effect that will have on churches in other countries. Deeply traditional churches that do not join the new Catholic prelature (for instance, the Church of Uganda) may choose to split from the Anglican Communion completely, and many of the reforms that those churches have undertaken may be lost. Put simply, the Anglican church will lose the ability to persuade the churches to reform, and they may even regress. That would be a social disaster in those countries.

It is almost impossible to weigh up the two issues: the undoubted benefits and moral righteousness of removing such traditional bars to ordination, and the harm that might be caused to societies in other countries if there is a schism. Is it better not to ordain women and homosexuals, and instead try to persuade the traditional churches into the 21st Century? Or should the progressive Anglican churches just plough their own furrow and hope that the traditional churches will follow?

The Anglican Communion moves slowly, but it is a positive rocket compared to the Catholic church, which is finding it increasingly hard to adjust to the modern world. Here are some examples:

1. The refusal to allow couples to use condoms in areas with high prevalence of Aids. Indeed the Catholic church even claimed that condoms contained little holes that allowed Aids through.
2. The Catholic church have still not banned the concept of Limbo, a theological kludge that will have caused anguish to millions of couples who have lost babies.
3. In 1992 the Catholic church finally admitted that the Earth went around the Sun, as opposed to the biblical interpretation that the Heavens revolved around the Earth. This was 382 years after Galileo Galilei published his book advocating the heliocentric theory, and 23 years after man first walked on the moon!

I find it amazing that anyone could consider moving from the Anglican church to the backwards and repressive Catholic church. Anyone so considering should look at this announcement and ask themselves - really ask themselves - if they want to be associated with the Catholic church. A church that is against abortion even in awful cases of incest; a church that is sentencing millions in Africa to death; a church that chose to ignore paedophilia amongst its priests, and allowed those priests to abuse youngsters repeatedly.

They prefer all that over having women and homosexuals within their church?

If they do, then shame on them.

Jose Cardoso Sobrinho and simple humanity

There were certain topics that I really wanted to avoid on this Blog, and one of these was religion. For one thing, I have a very strange relationship with religion. Secondly, I am far from being even a lay expert on it. Well, I have decided to break that rule.

If you have not heard, then there has been a row in Brazil after a nine year old girl, pregnant with twins, had an abortion after having been repeatedly raped by her stepfather. In response, a local Archbishop excommunicated the girl's mother and the doctors. Brazil allows abortions in cases of rape or where there are health risks to the mother. This case matches both of those criteria. Even Brazil's president, a Catholic, has come out against the excommunication.

Now, the Vatican has backed the excommunication.

Let us list the crimes here:

• A girl was raped from a young age;
• A pregnancy resulted from that rape.

Note, I did not include the abortion. The reason is simple: even under Brazil's strict laws, it was not a crime. Is a nine-year old's health in danger from giving birth to twins? Undoubtedly, physically and mentally. Was she raped? Well, I do not know of many jurisdictions that say that a nine year old can have consensual sex. So, yes.

This goes so much beyond 'right to life'. It goes into morality and immorality to a degree that causes shivers to run up my spine. And, unfortunately, the Catholic church has chosen utterly the wrong response. True, the abortion is to be regretted, but so is the concept of forcing a young girl who has already been through so much to have babies.

I have some sympathy with the right-to-life brigade. An abortion is an unfortunate act, one that would be best avoided. However, people are not perfect. I was certainly not perfect when I was younger, and although I never found myself in a position where a partner of mine needed an abortion, friends of mine have been. There but for the grace of God...

Abortion is a difficult issue. After much thought over many years, I have come down firmly on the pro-choice side of the debate.

Having said this, I find it very difficult to reconcile various concepts brought up by this debate. As a man, I would like to think that a man would have a say on whether a partner in a stable relationship has an abortion or not. That is, I would like them to have a say, but I know that they cannot have the final say. If, after that undoubtedly long and harrowing conversation, he cannot agree with her choice to have an abortion, then he is left with two choices: stick with her, or leave her. Both may be distasteful, but at the end of the day, it is the woman's body. Yes, it is unfair, but it is also unavoidable.

The idea of a bunch of middle-aged, unmarried men pronouncing on this issue is really galling. They are, of course, as much entitled to their opinion as I am. But at least my hateful opinion is not causing as much harm as theirs is. I am absolutely disgusted by this excommunication, and it does the image of the Catholic church no end of harm. I would not have minded if they said that they regretted the abortion; even that they wished that she had not had it; but an excommunication is a weapon, and one they have used fair and square against the girl.

Although they have not excommunicated the girl herself, they have excommunicated her mother. If the girl is religious, then how will she feel about that? Will she blame herself? Also, I have seen no indication that they have excommunicated the stepfather. If not, then they have just highlighted their hypocrisy.

Apparently the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said the law of God was above any human law. (from BBC). If that is the case, then he really needs to take a long look in the mirror. What other human laws does he say that 'his' interpretation of the bible supersede? Does he think that a kind and just God would allow this poor girl to go through with the births, at great risk to herself? Does he even have any simple human compassion? If so, he is not showing it.

I am absolutely furious about this. I hope her stepfather undergoes a fair trial and, if guilty, is treated to justice. Most of all, I hope that this poor girl, who has already been through so much, can recover from the added pressure caused by this excommunication by a bunch of contemptible, sick men who put dogma above humanity.