After reading the full interview of what the Jesuit General had to say
here, I have to say I find his words very disheartening. It sounds as if he’s completely embraced moral relativism. Fr. Dwight Longenecker made
some good points:
This is astounding. Let’s be clear. While Fr Abascal thinks Jesus’ words are difficult to understand, Fr Abascal’s are easily understood. He is saying that we can’t really know what Jesus’ words were so it is all up for grabs.
Nobody recorded the Resurrection, so how do we know
that happened? We know what the meaning behind Scripture is because of our faith in the Church that Jesus founded. I also think it’s ridiculous that he doesn’t like the word “doctrine”. How sad. The definition of doctrine is literally “the knowledge imparted by teaching.” If Christ is our teacher, and if we are to emulate him, how could we dislike these teachings? The obvious answer would be concupiscence, but Fr. Abascal takes it a step farther and makes it a dirty word, which is absolutely scandalous to come from a priest in such a position as he is in. It’s as if it’s no longer “politically correct” to mention the word “doctrine”.
I think it’s interesting to note, that if “discernment” is the end all, be all, and there is no absolute truth, why are we only seemingly drawing the line at issues of sexuality?
There was a blurb on Lifenews today which was describing an article that was in
Esquire Magazine a couple years ago. It tells the story of conversion of a Dr. Willie Parker, a Christian who left his job as a obstetrician to become a full time abortionist. He has discerned, against timeless Christian doctrine, that he is
helping people by carrying out abortions. He is doing abortions not in spite of being Christian, but
becauseDr. Parker: “And I address this [that some women are torn up by the fact that they don’t believe in abortion but they’re about to have one] because if those people are getting inside your head and you’re feeling conflicted, if you are not comfortable with what you’re doing, you may be processing this far longer than you need to. There’s nothing immoral about taking care of your health. There’s nothing immoral about making the decision to not become a parent before you want to become one. There’s more than one way to understand religion and spirituality and God. I do have belief in God. That’s why I do this work. My belief in God tells me that the most important thing you can do for another human being is help them in their time of need.”
…]
“The protesters say they’re opposed to abortion because they’re Christian,” Parker says. “It’s hard for them to accept that I do abortions because I’m a Christian.”
Parker obviously doesn’t believe that both the human being that is the mother, and the human being in the womb should be helped. His outlook on what a human being is:
When she [a patient] leaves, he points to the screen. Triplets. He’s seen lots of twins but never triplets. Some women think multiples are more special, so they get more upset.
After another scan, he points at the tiny blob on the screen. Eighty-nine percent of pregnancies are that small or smaller at termination. “That’s what we’re fighting about. To people against abortion, that’s a person.”
"When the triplets arrive, he points out one sac, two sacs, three sacs.
But then he brings in one that’s nine weeks and there’s a fetus. He points out the scattered parts. “There’s the skull, what is going to be the fetal skull. And there are the eye sockets.”
Floating near the top of the dish are two tiny arms with two tiny hands.
Parker continues to examine the tissue. He points to a black spot the size of a pencil tip. “That’s an eye.”
“That black spot is an eye. And here’s the umbilical cord.”…
Growing reflective, he continues to study the parts. “The reality is we’ve disrupted a life process. There are recognizable fetal parts, right? The capacity for this development is always there. After five weeks, you just have the sac. At six weeks, you have a fetal pole with cardiac activity. At seven to eight weeks, it’s just a larger fetal pole. By nine, it’s differentiated.”
But here’s the vital question: Is it a person? Not by the standards of the law, he says.
So how would Fr. Abascal address this concrete situation? Parker is a Christian. Christian doctrine since the beginning has taught that the killing of children is morally wrong. Parker has discerned that abortion is not morally wrong; it is actually a righteous thing to do because he believe the murder of the child in utero is helping the mother. Should he continue to follow his conscience? Would Fr. Abascal direct Parker in this situation to “recognize the priority of [his] personal conscience” (as Fr. Abascal noted in his interview) in the same way he would a person who while living in a state of adultery, believes they are doing nothing wrong by living
more uxorio and discern they can receive the Eucharist?
If he does not direct Parker to follow his conscience, and exhorts him to stop murdering a human being in its earliest stages of development, how can Fr. Abascal be logically consistent in saying that all doctrine and teaching of the Church is up for debate? That there are no such things as moral absolutes? I feel like the Church is entering a very trying time. We should all continue to pray for our leaders and clergy.
