Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ABORTION: Granholm blasted for abortion views - Catholic protesters say church must speak out
Detroit Free Press ^ | 9-2-2002 | KATHLEEN GRAY

Posted on 09/02/2002 6:14:19 AM PDT by Notwithstanding

Edited on 05/07/2004 7:12:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Catholic Church leaders have always spoken out against abortion, but now they're being asked to speak out against one of the flock -- Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jennifer Granholm -- because of her very public views on abortion.

It's a challenge for a church that has a significant number of parishioners who believe abortion should remain legal in at least some circumstances.


(Excerpt) Read more at freep.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholic; detroit; excommunicate; governor; michigan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: SMEDLEYBUTLER

The Global Fund for Women was established in 1987 by Anne Firth Murray, the Global Fund's Founding President and first CEO. Along with co-founders Frances Kissling and Laura Lederer, she determined to address the lack of funding available to women activists worldwide with the creation of a global foundation dedicated to their support. Dame Nita Barrow, former Governor General of Barbados, and a leading figure in the global women's movement was the fourth founding member of the Global Fund. In September 1996, Ms. Murray retired and was succeeded by Kavita Nandini Ramdas the current President and CEO.

41 posted on 09/02/2002 12:25:13 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
FRANCES KISSLING, PRESIDENT, CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE, STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT BUSH’S DECISION TO DENY UN FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS
For Immediate Release: July 22, 2002

For More Information: Jon O'Brien, Catholics for a Free Choice, 202-986-6093


Sponsor Organization: Catholics for a Free Choice

President Bush's decision to permanently deny US funds for the UNFPA is a tragic denial of life-saving family planning services for the world's poor.




In pandering to the religious right and the Vatican, the president has ignored well-known facts about UNFPA and its work in preventing abortions and ensuring that poor families are better able to care for the children they already have through access to safe and effective
methods of contraception. UNFPA's work in China has been evaluated by the State Department, by a UNFPA committee of advisors and by the UK parliament.

All have found that UNFPA is a force for voluntarism in China, not part of any coercive measures.

Time and again Catholic people have expressed their support for international family planning assistance, respecting the rights and
responsibilities of couples to decide when they will have children. Too bad the president has not listened to these people of faith.”

###

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well-being, and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives. Through discourse, education and advocacy, CFFC works in the United States and internationally to infuse these values into public policy, community life, feminist analysis, and Catholic social thinking and teaching.



42 posted on 09/02/2002 12:26:47 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER

Taken from the March, 1999, issue of Inside The Vatican. The caption under the picture reads as follows: "Some at the UN meeting claimed to represent the Church though dissenting from Church teaching on abortion. Frances Kissling (above), President of Catholics for a Free Choice, which supports abortion, was among these. Here she is shown with American professor Anthony Padovano, a former priest, at a workshop."

43 posted on 09/02/2002 12:29:23 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
An Interview with Frances Kissling
The president of Catholics For Free Choice talks about church doctrine,
victories---and the gender issues still facing the church.
by Kim McCarten



You said that when you first joined CFC you were reluctant to call yourself a pro-choice Catholic? Why were you reluctant?

Part of the reluctance was to identify myself as Catholic---not so much to combine the Catholicism and the pro-choice perspective, which is trouble for a lot of people. I think like many people, I was reasonably religious in my younger years- --and moved away from the church as I became an adult, and dealt with what it means to be an adult in our society. So in that sense, I had never become anything else [any other religion]-although for most of my adult life, I felt the church wasn't particularly relevant to me. So it was really a question of integrity: Could I see myself as a Catholic, was I a Catholic? What did it mean to be a Catholic? Those were the kinds of questions that I found myself asking-and it came down to a point where I said yes, I am a Catholic. This is the faith that I believe in, and the way in which I express it way be different from traditional formats---but nonetheless, I'm comfortable with that.

You said that as your tenure has gone on it has become more 'frankly feminist'. What specifically have you done to steer it in that direction?

First of all, I'm a feminist myself and have been a feminist for quite a long time. But I think that it was not just an individual process of steering [the organization] more towards feminism, but a collective process within the organization. As the staff and board looked at the issues more carefully, we came to a deeper understanding as to why the Catholic church opposes abortion. The arguments we were hearing from the church were about respect for life, and the fetus has an absolute right to life from the moment of conception, and the church is opposed to killing--- but we came to understand as we looked closer at the church's behavior, teachings, etc. that this was an anti-woman position. It wasn't about protecting fetuses---it really was about controlling women. And that if one looks at the history, the way in which the church has treated women, written about women, and really disrespected and feared women, one comes to understand that that is what the opposition to abortion is about. That's how CFC became a more feminist organization. Once you understand that the problem here is hatred of women, you begin to understand as an organization that the way in which you overcome or change the church's position on abortion, is to work on some of the root issues around misogyny and patriarchy.

So your focus then shifted to 'the church hasn't been against abortion, it's against women'? In fact, I read that the church didn't come out against abortion until 1869.

The church has always been against abortion---although it was not 'absolutized' before 1869. In 1869, the church said having an abortion, any time in pregnancy for any reason can result in the automatic excommunication of the people involved. That was what was new in 1869. But historically, if you look at the position against abortion, it is not rooted in the church's opposition to killing, it's rooted in the church's teachings around sexuality. So the reason the church opposed abortion traditionally was not because the church thought it was murder, but rather because abortion was seen as a violation of the teaching that every sexual act must be open to procreation. And obviously, if you have a sexual act that results in a pregnancy and you have an abortion, you've violated that teaching. You can look at lots of early church doctrine where this is very well articulated. So, for example, in the early centuries of the church, the church developed books which I call penetentials, which were lists of penances for different kinds of things. And for abortion there were always penances---but they were listed under the section on sins against sexuality, not in the section on murder. If you look at the church of today, we don't see a teaching that says the fetus is a person. Which is shocking. Most people think that the church believes that fetuses are people. But there is no such teaching.

That leads to my next question: What do you think is the biggest miscon-ception about church teachings on abortion?

I think that's it-that the church has definitively taught that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception--and it hasn't. The church position is (and this is not my position) says that 'we do not know when the fetus becomes a person.' And because we do not know, we must act as if the fetus was a person. In the absence of knowledge, we absolutize the behavior. And our position is that the absence of knowledge leads to freedom to sift and weigh what we do know from what is speculated in different philosophical, medical and theological realms-and come to our own conclusion about what we think. Because we do know that women are people-for a while there was some debate in the church about that! But we do now know and accept that women are people. And therefore, to say that we should put a higher priority on a form of life whose personhood is not known over a form of life--women--whose personhood is known---is to us to denigrade women.

And that, it seems, is the ultimate choice--you have to decide who is more important at that point . . .

Who has more standing . . .

Which makes the church stance an inherently anti-woman stance. It seems the church has problems with issues of sexuality because they have problems with women.

I think the two are very much linked. There have been articles about this, and I've written about this. If you look at the church historically and the way in which both women and sexuality were feared---women were feared because they were perceived to be this 'ultimate sexual temptation'. The men took no responsibility for their sexual desires---it was always the 'bad' woman. And the bad woman has to be controlled. So sexuality has to be controlled. It's no accident, for example, when you look today's religious beliefs about abortion, that it is those religious institutions which have the most repressive teachings about women, that are anti-abortion. Orthodox Judaism, which does not allow women to become rabbis is against abortion. Roman Catholicism---same thing; the Mormon church . . . You have the same teachings . . . even in Islam, there is a more nuanced position [on abortion]. And of course Roman Catholicism is the only religion that absolutely forbids contraception. Islam is totally accepting of the use of contra-ception within marriage. We tend to think of Islam as a more conservative religion, and the reality is that Roman Catholicism has them all beat.

I read that the Vatican tried to stop your group from attending the International Conference on Women in Bejing. I wondered if you saw that as a compliment to your effectiveness and power?

Absolutely! It was interesting. We were really active at the Cairo conference (on population) in 1994. And that angered the Vatican enormously. We were really successful in raising serious issues to the UN about the status of the Vatican. What standing does the Vatican have to be recognized as a state, never mind as an 'expert' on population and reproductive health? The citizens of the Vatican are comprised of 1000 men. There are no women citizens, no children citizens---why are we listening to these people? We raised a lot of those points. So when it came time for Bejing (1997), the Vatican stepped up to the plate and very seriously challenged our right to be credentialed for that meeting. And the UN, of course, overrode the Vatican objections and did admit us. It was an enormous victory for us and visible proof of the way in which the Vatican tries to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Do you think the power and influence of the Vatican is growing, in terms of being a threat to women's lives around the world?

In some ways, yes. I think there is a mixed picture. One of the things that is really important, especially in the developing countries, is that the Vatican is such a major provider of healthcare and social services. It has used it's social service agencies and hospitals to further this doctrine, and as a result, women are not properly cared for in terms of reproductive health. The Vatican also has a way of really influencing government policy to be anti-family-planning. On the other hand, I do think over the next decade, particularly as this papacy fades and dies, that their influence will diminish.

What affect has CFC had in Latin America, where there is more of a traditional society?

We're having a very, very strong affect. We have sister organizations that we've helped establish in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Peru that are independent of us. So there is a very strong, pro-choice Catholic movement in those countries as a result of the work we've done. In Brazil, there have been a number of efforts to change the laws on abortion in recent years, although none of them have succeeded. And the Catholics for Free Choice organization there has been very active in those efforts. They're having the same kind of affect that we have here [in the US], in terms of giving the Vatican a run for its money in claiming that Catholics simply do not approve of family planning. I think that's the one thing, going back to the efforts to bar us from the Bejing conference, that causes the Vatican so much distress-we insist on calling ourselves Catholics. If we would only just not use the word 'Catholic'. But the very fact that someone stands upand says 'I am a Catholic. I am pro-choice. I disagree with this church and it does not represent me,' ---especially when we know that the vast majority of the Catholics in the world disagree with the church's position on family planning---is very, very threatening to them.

I read that once women in these countries discover that there are Catholics who don't believe the church's teachings on family planning and abortion that it opens the door for them.

Absolutely. People say that to me all the time: 'I never knew there was a group like yours out there. I always felt like I was the only Catholic who felt this way.' Then they learn that there is a whole movement of people and they are much more comfortable. It's very empowering.

What direction do you see the Vatican going in with a new pope?

In the immediate future, with the next pope, I do think the Vatican will be as conservative as it is now. But one of the big problems for the church right now is the shortage of priests. I don't think the next pope will 'allow' women to be priests; but he will allow married men to become priests. There's no question in my mind. It must happen. It can happen. There is NO theological barrier. After all, most of the apostles were married. And for the first thousand years, the church had married priests and married bishops. So it can happen---and it will be absolutely essential that the next pope do this. Well, the next step is birth control. You can't have married priests, with wives, having sex, having children, and not using birth control.

Because the parish has to support them?

That's right. We can't afford not to. So I think that there is a practical trajectory that will influence [this issue]---then everything else will follow.

What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding that church leaders have about women who have abortions?

I think probably they have an image of a woman who is a selfish, individualistic, hedonistic person who is only looking out for own convenience. Or someone who does this on the spur of the moment. My experience has been that many of these women wish that their lives were different, that they could carry this pregnancy to term. If they were acting selfish, they would have a child. And the reality is that this is a very unselfish act; to give up what, under most circumstances, they would view as a positive experience---because they cannot provide for a child.

What other gender issues does CFC work on?

We work on the question of women priests. We believe that women should be ordained for the priesthood.

Do you think that is going to happen in your lifetime?

Well it depends on how long I live!

Within the next fifty years!?

I do think that is will be much longer in coming; perhaps forty or fifty years. First we need the married guys; then we need to get the sex stuff taken care of-then maybe there will be women priests. I hope that by the time the church is ready to ordain women priests, that we would have overturned the priesthood-that we would have a more egalitarian church. A church in which we were not talking about who is the priest, not talking about a permanent, elitist priesthood---but a more democratic model of church leadership.

Does CFC have a position on teenage sex?

In a more generic sense, what we would say is that we think the ethical justification for sexuality that the church puts forward, which is procreation, is the wrong model. The way in which we should evaluate whether a sexual relationship is 'good' is by using the model of justice-every other relationship is judged this way---by whether justice exists between the two people; between a boss and employee, etc.

Justice being another word for equality?

Well equality would be a part of justice. Each person should have the best interests of the other person at heart; there should be no domination of the other, no one cheats anyone else, you are honorable with each other---those are some of the characteristics of what constitutes justice between two people. And such relationships can exists outside marriage, and between people of the same gender, they can also exist between teenagers.

Have you dealt with what is an appropriate age for sex, intercourse?

We haven't dealt with it that finely.

It seems to be coming up more and more. I've read 'sex columnists', like Susie Bright in supposedly feminist publications tell 13-year-olds that they are ready for intercourse. I'm very liberated about sexuality, but I'm not liberated to the point of stupidity.

Exactly.

How do you feel about condoms distributed in schools?

We think that condoms should be available.

And sexuality education?

Yes. We think it's critical---and it should mean not only education about how to make babies, the mechanics---but also deal with values, and respect and self-esteem . . .

. . . which is totally left out. How bout parental consent on abortion?

We have a strong believe that parents should be involved in a young person's decision about abortion. We don't think you can do this by passing a law which sends a letter to parents that a kid has to get signed-we think this is stupid. There are other and better ways to ensure parental involvement in situations that don't involve abuse. And more should be done to help young people involve their parents. There should be more counseling available, counseling that enables profes-sionals to spend more time with the young person and with their parents; things that would help get parents and young people together when these difficult decisions need to made. And it's a tough situation---you're dealing with young people who often don't have money, often don't have insurance--and then there is a time frame that's very, very short. We think there are a lot of young kids who say they can't tell their parents, but who, with proper support, could tell their parents. And we believe their parents would be helpful, not harmful. There needs to be more dialogue. I don't want a young kid going home after having a medical procedure, an emotionally trying procedure---without anyone who knows about it at home.

Do you see a possibility of the American Catholic church breaking off from Rome and forming a reform church, like other religions have done?

No. First of all I think that happened 500 years ago---it was called Protestantism! And if we don't like [Rome] now, we just become Episcopalians, Unitarians, Methodists---or whatever. My experience with Catholics, myself included, is that people have a lot of love and pride in the Roman Catholic Church-and that people want to make it a better church. They don't want to leave it. There's also a power dynamic-it's a powerful church. And we want to be a part of it. Even though the church embarrasses you, there is still a way in which you like being associated with it. For some, it's the intellectual tradition, the liberation theology movement, the way the church works with the poor---there's a lot going against dissident Catholics forming another church. In a certain sense the church, in many ways, is powerless to prevent Catholics from staying in the church and doing what they think is right. The church has not gone out of it's way to excommunicate women who have abortions, doctors who perform abortions, politicians who have a pro-choice stance---are they going to excommuni-cate Daniel Moynihan, Ted Kennedy, etc.? So it's quite possible to stay within the church and hold different views.

Do you believe that there was a pope Joan?

I don't know--- I think it's possible.

It seems like they go to a lot of trouble to check and see that each pope is male!

I've read a little bit of the literature. I'm skeptical. It's possible, but I'm skeptical.


Catholics for Free Choice is a national organization based in Washington, DC and is affiliated with Catholic organizations around the world.
They can be reached at www.cath4choice.org/ 1436 'U' Street NW, Washington, DC 20009; (202) 986-6093.
44 posted on 09/02/2002 12:33:51 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
"But when it comes to both right wing Catholics and also the hierarchy, they are extremely angry at anyone who speaks out against official teaching."


These people don't get it. The Church is not a club where you can pick and choose the rules you want to follow.
45 posted on 09/02/2002 12:49:02 PM PDT by Tadhg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Good point. I hadn't even considered the hypocrisy angle.
46 posted on 09/02/2002 2:54:17 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Actually, the woman who has an abortion is not excommunicated, I remember reading this, the doctor is excommunicated from the Church and anyone who helps her obtain the abortion, but the woman is wrong. If anyone has the actual Church Canon that cites this right or wrong, it would be appreciated. God Bless
47 posted on 09/02/2002 4:01:42 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
To take her postition is a cop out. It was the Supreme Court that forced abortion on the individual states. The question should be put to the voters in each state to decide. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has any business in social engineering of any kind. Is there any way for states to over ride the Supreme Court, why should they be allowed to have the last say in matters of such importance to society?
48 posted on 09/02/2002 4:09:42 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrJET
The seeds of destruction within the Catholic Church are well rooted and fertilized with neglect for the last fourty years. One local priest told me over ten years ago that any Seminarian with ANY conservative tendencies will not make it to ordination.

It is not surprising that every aspect of Catholic life has been under severe attack because "the old views are not popular!"

I believe that the lack of discipline in any organization will eventually lead to its downfall!
49 posted on 09/02/2002 4:14:56 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Frank has been drinking too much kool-aid. Here's a good expose on that nut.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/feature1.htm

April 1, 2002



Aborting the Church
Frances Kissling & Catholics For A Free Choice
By Kathryn Jean Lopez

The media love Frances Kissling. It’s hard to blame them, really, given their general political agenda: Kissling wants abortion to remain legal, with no restrictions. She wants to boot the Vatican from the United Nations (UN). She wants bishops to tell Catholics it’s okay to use condoms—even to distribute them. She wants RU-486, the abortion pill, to be cheaper. She wants Catholic hospitals to perform the whole gamut of "reproductive services," including abortion and sterilization. She wants "gender equity," even in the Roman Catholic priesthood.

And she’s Catholic. Perfect.

Frances Kissling is president of the 29-year-old Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), an independent "Catholic" group with a solid funding base and perhaps all you really need to make an impact—a major media presence. CFFC’s purpose is to promote abortion, "reproductive health," and gender equality, in line with what the CFFC calls a "social justice tradition."

The problem with this scheme should be obvious. In fact, the U.S. Catholic bishops have thought it important enough to point out. In a statement issued in May 2000 by the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Galveston-Houston Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, the bishops weighed in on the status of CFFC.

"For a number of years," Bishop Fiorenza’s statement reads, "a group calling itself Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) has been publicly supporting abortion while claiming it speaks as an authentic Catholic voice. That claim is false. In fact, the group’s activity is directed to rejection and distortion of Catholic teaching about the respect and protection due to defenseless unborn human life."

CFFC, the statement continues, is "an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world," funded by wealthy private foundations seeking to "promote abortion as a method of population control." The bishops made a similar statement in 1993.

But Frances Kissling thinks differently. She has insisted time and again that she’s a Catholic in good standing. She’s even gone so far as to publicly challenge any cleric to excommunicate her. "Since no bishop or pope—and I am reasonably sure that these authorities know who I am and what I believe—has chosen either to pronounce me excommunicated or declare that I have automatically excommunicated myself, I am confident that I remain in good standing with the Church," she wrote in 1999.

See Change

The 2000 bishops’ statement was released at the height of CFFC’s most successful campaign ever in terms of media attention. Operation See Change is a project aimed at getting the UN to revoke the Vatican’s current status as a Non-Member State Permanent Observer. (The Vatican voluntarily chose not to be a full member so it wouldn’t have to contribute money or take sides in times of war.) "We believe that the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic Church, should participate in the UN in the same way as the world’s other religions do—as a non-governmental organization," declares the mission statement of Operation See Change.

"Call it the Holy See, the Vatican, or the Roman Catholic Church, it’s a religion, not a country," CFFC says on its See Change Web site at www.seechange.org. The site features slogans like "Keep the UN Safe for Women. End Vatican Statehood" and "Warning: Vatican Statehood is dangerous to women’s health." A favorite line of Kissling’s is that if the Vatican deserves a say at the UN, so does Euro-Disney.

CFFC and its See Change supporters argue that because the Vatican is not a state, it should not be treated as one in the UN. Consider, however, this odd remark from Kissling in a 1989 interview with Mother Jones magazine: "I spent twenty years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic Church."

The Vatican, of course, is a state in its own right. To downgrade its status would be to give it the same status as, say, the Girl Scouts. The UN never responded to the CFFC campaign, although every abortion group you can think of jumped on the bandwagon, staging protests and other events tailor-made for TV news cameras. But in the end, no member state would support the campaign, which is necessary for the Vatican’s status to be reviewed by the UN. On the other hand, a pro-life countercampaign garnered more support in less time.

The See Change campaign should have been a huge embarrassment for CFFC. But for the media and the abortion industry, CFFC is a great asset. There’s no cutting it off just yet.

The Real CFFC

In 1980, Frances Kissling left her post as founder and head of the National Abortion Federation (the trade association for abortion clinics) to take the helm of CFFC, which was founded in 1973—the year Roe v. Wade was decided.

"It is amazing what money can buy," Gail Quinn, executive director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB, wrote recently in an editorial on CFFC. "Kissling takes out ads in major newspapers, puts out lots of press releases, calls reporters, hangs out with like-minded folks who get in the news, publishes lots of stuff, and travels around so that she can seem to be everywhere." (Well, almost everywhere. Kissling declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this article.)

Among the most obvious problems with CFFC—other than its advocacy of abortion and other aspects of the culture of death—is the group’s donor list. As Thomas Woods points out in a recently released monograph on CFFC for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), CFFC’s pro-life nemesis at the UN, "CFFC, which portrays itself as a champion of the dignity of women, has twice accepted grants from Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation." (Kissling has insisted, however, that she’d never accept money from Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine, noting that "there are boundaries of good taste.")

But this only scratches the surface. Brian Cowles details the organization’s funding base in his new book, Catholics for a Free Choice Exposed, from Human Life International. Some of the names are familiar: The Turner Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Philanthropy magazine noted that CFFC’s donors give very little support to any other Catholic organizations: "One looks in vain at these organizations’ program areas for evidence of meaningful support of parochial schools, retired nuns, Catholic missions, religious vocations work, or parish ministry—the areas that are the meat and potatoes of Catholic philanthropy today."

You don’t have to rely on the testimony of pro-lifers to make the point. The former president of CFFC, Joseph O’Rourke, an ex-Jesuit, admitted in a 1984 interview with the National Catholic Register that "CFFC really was just kept alive for years because the mainline pro-choice movement wanted a Catholic vote."

On its Web site (www.cath4choice.org), CFFC offers several fawning media quotes about Frances Kissling. One is from columnist Ellen Goodman, who called Kissling the "philosopher of the pro-choice movement." This seems to have charmed the big names—the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs—into making the pro-choice "ex-nun" (as she is often erroneously labeled) their spokesman. Because of her background, she can get away with saying things they can’t.

As for its member base, there is none. Critics routinely refer to Kissling and CFFC as "Frances Kissling and her fax machine." Or, as others have dubbed CFFC, "a well-funded letterhead."

Although her organization has no actual membership, Kissling claims to represent American Catholics, arguing that Catholics are overwhelmingly "pro-choice" (she says about 70 percent). What she doesn’t tell you is that most Catholics do not support CFFC’s position—any abortion, anytime, no restrictions. Catholics, admittedly, are little better than the rest of the nation when it comes to the issue of abortion—split 50-50 according to most polls. But, again like most Americans, they are increasingly supportive of restrictions. And polls suggest that the majority of practicing Catholics are firmly against abortion. In any case, most Catholics, like most Americans, do not support the CFFC line.

Why Catholic?

The obvious question for Kissling and CFFC is, Why do they remain Catholic?

Their answer is simple: Why not? Kissling insists she wants to reform the Church. She contends that there’s no Catholic position on abortion—and she insists she can use the Bible to prove it. Such claims have won her a wide following in the abortion lobby. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, says, "Frances Kissling is a refreshing, untiring, articulate advocate. She and her organization have a unique niche in that a large percentage of the women in the country who obtain abortions are Catholic. She has always been an inspiration to me."

But Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has a different view. "[CFFC] gets far more public attention than its numbers deserve. That’s not a surprise, though, because Catholics for a Free Choice serves a very useful purpose in the larger information war over abortion. The Catholic Church has always been the single most consistent proponent of life and opponent of abortion in American culture. So if you’re ‘pro-choice,’ breaking its credibility becomes a serious priority. That’s the value of Catholics for a Free Choice. It’s a tool to use against the Catholic Church. Nothing more."

When it comes to sexual ethics, Kissling told the sex magazine Nerve, "People already do what they feel is right, so in a sense there would be little change in behavior. We are Catholics, and we use contraception, we have abortions, we get AIDS and we need help. The Church is not listening, and it’s not even a case of benign neglect. This is a case where we need a Church that speaks out to prevent these tragedies, and currently the Church contributes to them."

CFFC peddles its own take on Catholic teachings. Besides its claim that the Church has no single voice when it comes to abortion, it rests most of its erroneous arguments on a false concept of "conscience." (Conscience is even the name of its flagship quarterly magazine.) CFFC claims "Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their own consciences on moral matters, even when one’s conscience is in conflict with church teachings." The Catechism of the Catholic Church, of course, has a far different take on conscience, warning that a "mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience could lead to erroneous conscience-guided judgments."

As much as she lobbies and agitates, though, Kissling doesn’t really think the Church will change soon. "We have no expectations that we will be welcomed with open arms. We are not looking for an invitation to sit at the bishops’ dinner table."

Aborting the Church

Dorothy A. Petke, who is a supporter of CFFC and a member of the "progressive Catholic" group Call to Action, explains how a Catholic can be pro-choice (do not dare say "pro-abortion" around these folks): "I planned a bumper sticker for the last election campaign to say ‘Vote for Free Choice, Then Choose Life,’ which is how I think many freechoice types feel about it. We don’t like abortion any more than anyone else, but we also don’t like anybody not in our shoes telling us what we have to do with our bodies."

Rosemary Stanek, president of California Catholics for Free Choice, says of the national organization to which she isn’t in any formal way attached, "CFFC is not ‘pro-abortion.’ We are dedicated to preserving women’s ability to make the decision that is the most moral for them—abortion, raising the child, or adoption. Abortion must be legal, however, for women to be able to freely make the decision that their conscience leads them to."

In a letter to Newsday last year, Kissling herself wrote:

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Pro-choice people have many different beliefs about the morality of abortion. For some it is almost never morally justified; for others it is often justified. What they agree on is that each woman must weigh her beliefs and circumstances without interference by the state and make her own decision.

Majorie Reiley Maguire, who wrote some of CFFC’s founding propaganda material with her then-husband, ex-Jesuit Daniel McGuire, says today that CFFC is anti-Catholic and anti-woman—and pro-abortion, regardless of the CFFC spin. In a letter to the National Catholic Reporter in 1995, she wrote:

Various personal experiences with CFFC have led me to believe that its agenda is no longer simply to defend the legality of a woman’s abortion choice against efforts to recriminalize that choice. Instead, I now see CFFC’s agenda as the promotion of abortion, the defense of every abortion decision as a good, moral choice, and the related agenda of persuading society to cast off any moral constraints about sexual behavior. I don’t think this is a Catholic or pro-woman agenda whether you are liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice.

Understanding Kissling

Frances Kissling is no lightweight. She’s a sharp, media-savvy woman whose insider knowledge of the Catholic Church makes her indispensable to abortion-advocacy groups and the media. In an interview with Merge magazine, an Internet publication, Kissling said, "For most of my adult life, I felt the church wasn’t particularly relevant to me." Talking about her return to the Church in CFFC’s magazine, Kissling admitted, "I never came back on the old terms." It is as "a social change agent" that she is today a "Catholic"—a Catholic, she has said, who doesn’t pray.

In the Nerve article discussing sex and religion, Kissling gave readers a brief glimpse of her life:

I grew up a working class Catholic with an intellectual and spiritual life from childhood. My mother was divorced and remarried so early on I separated church teachings which considered my mother an adulteress from reality—I knew my mother was not going to hell for having sex with her second husband. I never thought much about church teachings on sexuality. I entered the convent at the age of nineteen and left at the age of twenty and had little sexual experience—no intercourse for sure—prior to that. My sexual life has been shaped far more by my sexual desires, needs and partners than by religion. It has a spiritual dimension, but not a religious one. I really think God cares very little about the sexual rules, about who is sleeping with whom, other than to wish that we treat each other well and with respect.

Some time after leaving the convent, she had herself sterilized. "For me to be pregnant would be an enormous violation of my personal integrity."

In 1970, Kissling operated an abortion clinic in New York, one of two states that at the time allowed abortion. She told the Washington Post Magazine in a 1986 interview that the center performed about 30 to 40 abortions on any weekday, 70 to 80 on a Saturday. Today, Kissling serves on the board of the militantly pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute.

For someone who exerts so much time and energy trying to change the Church, Kissling doesn’t seem to like it very much. Whatever she has said in response to official Church reprimands, she speaks quite differently to others. At a roundtable discussion at the UN sponsored by CFFC in March 1999, she said:

Sometimes what I say to myself is that those of us who are Roman Catholic feminists, who work to change this institution, are actually providing it with the safety valve to continue to be an oppressive, patriarchal, evil institution. As for the people who come and tell me myself, "Maybe I shouldn’t be making it possible for anyone." Because this institution is fatally flawed, and I might have more success in the Episcopalian church, where it’s not quite so bad, but there are so few Episcopalians, it’s not worth it.

This from the woman who claims to be "motivated by a love of the church and a commitment to a vision of church that respects the conscience of every individual."

Kissling wants to be part of the Catholic Church, she says, no matter how much it "embarrasses" her. It’s partly a power thing, she explained to Merge:

My experience with Catholics, myself included, is that people have a lot of love and pride in the Roman Catholic Church—and that people want to make it a better church. They don’t want to leave it. There’s also a power dynamic—it’s a powerful church. And we want to be a part of it. Even though the church embarrasses you, there is still a way in which you like being associated with it. For some, it’s the intellectual tradition, the liberation theology movement, the way the church works with the poor—there’s a lot going against dissident Catholics forming another church. In a certain sense the church, in many ways, is powerless to prevent Catholics from staying in the church and doing what they think is right. The church has not gone out of its way to excommunicate women who have abortions, doctors who perform abortions, politicians who have a pro-choice stance—are they going to excommunicate Daniel Moynihan, Ted Kennedy, etc.? So it’s quite possible to stay within the church and hold different views.

Kissling has a vision of what the Church will be like 40 or 50 years from now. In her interview with Merge, she explained that women’s ordinations would likely take that long:

I do think that it will be much longer in coming; perhaps forty or fifty years. First we need the married guys; then we need to get the sex stuff taken care of—then maybe there will be women priests. I hope that by the time the church is ready to ordain women priests, that we would have overturned the priesthood—that we would have a more egalitarian church. A church in which we were not talking about who is the priest, not talking about a permanent, elitist priesthood—but a more democratic model of church leadership.

Blaming the Bishops

Some point to CFFC’s most recent ad campaign and wonder where the organization is headed. On last year’s World AIDS Day (December 1), CFFC unveiled ads at 50 bus shelters and in 134 Metrorail cars in Washington, D.C. The ads read, "Because the bishops ban condoms, innocent people die," and "Catholic people care. Do our bishops? Banning Condoms Kills." At the start of the new year, CFFC debuted similar ads in Belgium, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, and other countries.

In a press release, Kissling explained her campaign: "The Vatican and the world’s bishops bear significant responsibility for the death of thousands of people who have died from AIDS. For individuals who follow the Vatican policy and Catholic health care providers who are forced to deny condoms, the bishops’ ban is a disaster. We can no longer stand by and allow the ban to go unchallenged."

Since then, she has been making the television rounds—including a lively debate with Catholic League president William Donahue on CNN’s Crossfire. Kissling won’t give credit to the Church for providing health care in Africa and other parts of the world hit especially hard by the AIDS epidemic. And yet, according to the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., Catholic organizations provide 25 percent of all HIV/AIDS care worldwide, making the Church the largest provider of this type of care. Kissling blames the Church for not amending its teachings to conform to the behavior of promiscuous people. But, as Donahue said on Crossfire, "There’s not a single person in the history of the world...who has ever died as a result of a sexually transmitted disease because they followed Catholic teaching."

Austin Ruse, president of C-FAM, a longtime observer of CFFC and Kissling, notes that this "new assault on the Church will have absolutely no impact on Church teaching related to contraception. Most Catholics have never heard of her or her group or her campaign. She is known and supported by a very small number of pro-abortion zealots and a few fellow travelers in the media. Her impact and the impact of her group are miniscule."

While most of CFFC’s projects involve short-lived media buzz, like passing out condoms at World Youth Day, Kissling can—and has—done significant damage in very focused ways. For instance, she managed to wage an ultimately successful scare campaign against pro-life Catholic John Klink, rumored to have been the president’s choice for the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration last summer.

Kissling’s most important work—particularly in the eyes of her real backers, the abortion lobby—may be yet to come. Morley Safer described that work on 60 Minutes as a "crusade to keep Catholic doctrine out of medicine." Bills are pending in several states to force some and eventually all of the United States’s 620 Catholic hospitals to provide services forbidden by the Church. It’s an area where the "women’s groups" and abortion advocates may need her the most.

The bishops’ recently updated "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" requires that Catholic health-care organizations not "engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically evil, such as abortion, euthanasia, and direct sterilization."

Pro-choice groups would like to see an end to mergers involving Catholic hospitals until those hospitals can be forced to undertake procedures that violate Church teaching. The National Women’s Law Center, a pro-abortion legal group, recently released a briefing paper on hospital mergers and "the threat to women’s reproductive health services." Among the groups responsible for funding the booklet were the Ford Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and the Open Society Institute—all backers of CFFC.. The paper is a how-to guide for enlisting state attorneys general in the effort to thwart Catholic health care.

It’s possible, and probably likely, that CFFC will be around for a while, popping up now and again with media blitzes and in New York Times articles, where it is regularly featured as the voice of dissident American Catholics. Archbishop Chaput concludes, "For me, CFFC has always been a poster child for the wrong kind of assimilation. It’s much more ‘American’ than it is Catholic. Scripture tells us to be a leaven in society and a light to the nations. CFFC is what you get when you’re not."

Kathryn Jean Lopez is executive editor of National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com) and an associate editor of National Review. She can be reached,at klopez@nationalreview.com

Back to Contents

Copyright Crisis Magazine © 2001 Washington DC, USA

50 posted on 09/02/2002 5:14:15 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DrJET
Actually I would say that these American Bishops have not ceded authority to the left....they *are* the left, and are active participants.
51 posted on 09/02/2002 5:29:05 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
From The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Search on abortion.

Search Results:


1-4 records returned of 4 matching ABORTION .

2271. "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured ABORTION.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct ABORTION, that is to say, ABORTION willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by ABORTION and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320.]
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: ABORTION and infanticide are abominable crimes.[GS 51 # 3.] "
To view the context, please visit

2272. "Formal cooperation in an ABORTION constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
'A person who procures a completed ABORTION incurs excommunication latae sententiae,'[CIC, can. 1398.] 'by the very commission of the offense,'[CIC, can. 1314.] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.[Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324.]
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."
To view the context, please visit

2274. "Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, 'if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an ABORTION, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.'[CDF, Donum vitae I, 2.]"
To view the context, please visit

2322. "From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct ABORTION, that is, ABORTION willed as an end or as a means, is a 'criminal' practice (GS 27 # 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life."To view the context, please visit


52 posted on 09/02/2002 5:56:16 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: kjenerette
...for class.
54 posted on 09/05/2002 1:14:37 PM PDT by kjenerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Did she win?
55 posted on 01/04/2003 4:41:33 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Yes, she is now our governess.
56 posted on 01/04/2003 8:11:22 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Lucky You.

I guess she didn't read this:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/gospel.htm Good link for Catholic Voters and Politicians.


If you can, see to it that she is added to these lists, thanks. You will have to e mail the webmasters to alert them to it.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/hhsengov.htm
http://www.cathfam.org/cfexcom/Excom.html

Sign Petition
http://www.cathfam.org/cfexcom/Excom.html
57 posted on 01/04/2003 9:31:20 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson