When you move in such narrow, restricted circles (and God knows, the pro-choice scene is that) don’t be surprised when the miniscule number of ‘Catholics’ you encounter prove less than representative of Roman Catholicism.

And don’t, for your own credibility’s sake, hold oddball non-communicants up as exemplars of Roman Catholicism because it only makes you look silly. Like I said, you know next to nothing about Catholicism.

Rather than guffawing ignorantly when your category errors are exposed, you’d be better off expanding your reading matter and company.

For an NUS official, your ignorance, as it stands, is truly appalling.

Turning off the sarcasm, I’ll pass your thoughts on to my friends and let them know that you say they’re not proper Catholics and that they’re either ignorant or deceitful and that I never have to take them seriously again.

Well, it’ll be one way to liven up a Monday morning…

I am not ’suggesting’ - perish the thought! - that you are telling porkies.

But I am observing that you know next to nothing about Roman Catholicism, as evinced by your comments about ‘pro-choice’ Catholics, which is, as I noted, a contradiction in terms.

Roman Catholics, who must, by definition, respect the Church’s Magisterium, affirm the sancity of all human life from conception to natural death. Roman Catholics are forbidden from taking *any* part in, approving of, or legislating for abortion on pain of excommunciation.

Those people who claim to be Roman Catholic and ‘pro-choice’ are either wilfully ignorant of Church teaching or deliberately deceitful. Either way, they are not regarded as being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, nor are they taken seriously.

For one who has held an official NUS position you seem strangely incapable of researching something as simple as the RC Church’s position on abortion.

This is not because they think that abortion is desirable, just like pro-choice non-Catholics. It may mean that they think that legalised abortion is the lesser of two evils compared to so-called backstreet abortions.

It may be that they wish to focus their energies on protecting children who are born. Or it may be, perhaps of personal or vicarious experience they recognise that there are numerous circumstances where, even for a practising Catholic, an abortion is actually desirable.

In my experience (background: brought up a Catholic, many members of immediate and extended family and friends, old and new, are Catholics) Catholics who have first or second person insight into the realities of abortion often become evangelical in their desire to a) ensure that free reliable contraception is available and b) strongly discourage a culture of casual sex.

I think, in general, pro-choice Catholics are very uncomfortable with situations where for example an adult woman in a stable-ish relationship chooses to abort a healthy foetus because she feels unready for motherhood, but have a greater sympathy for children, those who have been (or believe themselves to have been) raped, those with a severely handicapped foetus, those where the mother’s life or health is at risk etc.

It is also true that many other Catholics will not vote for pro-choice Parliamentary candidates, which could be in any of the main Parties. Others base their voting choices on a basket of issues. I grew up in a constituency where the Tory MP at the time was pro-hanging, and that was the issue that was preached from the pulpit.

I don’t think you understand Roman Catholicism (which doesn’t surprise me). Roman Catholics are Pro Life. The term, ‘pro choice’ Catholics is a contradiction in terms.

Not sure what your point is. Are you

a) Suggesting that I’m telling porkies and that these people don’t exist;
b) Suggesting that my friends aren’t really Catholics; or
c) Suggesting that they aren’t really pro-choice?

It would be really interesting to get your pov on this…

I don’t think you understand Roman Catholicism (which doesn’t surprise me). Roman Catholics are Pro Life. The term, ‘pro choice’ Catholics is a contradiction in terms.

And if you are genuinely ‘pro-choice’, Jo, as you claim to be, you’d be advised not to bring up DFID and the reasons for Ruth Kelly ruling herself out of that particular brief. The record of our ‘pro choice’ friends in international development is, ahem, less than honourable.

Similarly, I don’t care if people are anti-life, so long as *they* don’t care to impose their oddball views on, say, the Labour Party.

Ruth Kelly has never sought to impose anything on anyone; any suggestions to the contrary based on her religious affiliations are mendacious. As minister for local government, moreover, she has a duty to consult with interested parties about forthcoming legislation. Just as she has a duty to report to Cabinet about the unusually high number of submissions she has had from religious groups who say that the wording of the proposed law is deeply problematic as it could compromise their religious freedoms. Any minister would be bound to do the same thing; any failure to do so would be bad politics.

The nasty attacks on Ruth Kelly for her religious affiliations are not merely vulgar and distasteful, they could rebound on the party as a whole. If word gets out that Roman Catholics are being screened out of leading government or party positions, Catholics may just take their votes elsewhere.

Oh, and for the record, I don’t care if someone is anti-choice so long as they don’t seek to impose that view on other people and restrict their choices as a result. For what it’s worth, I had some respect for Kelly’s decision to rule her out of those briefs I mentioned as it suggests she isn’t seeking to impose her personal choices on other people.

Unfortunately, I think she’s blown it with the gay thing.

/sighs