"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal
Jack Spong publicly insults Rowan Williams and Nigerian bishop Isaac Orama says that gay and lesbian people are “not fit to live.” Of course, the former is merely bad taste while the latter is a moral monstrosity.
UPDATE: I should note that doubt has been cast on whether Bp. Orama in fact said the things attributed to him. The UPI has pulled the story a spokesman for the Anglican Church of Nigeria has said that Orama denies making the comments in question. See here for more.
I agree with Bp. Spong that reversing course on a celibate gay man’s appointment was wrong, and bad leadership. I don’t agree with much else of what he says, but then again I rarely do.
I also agree with you that Bp. Orama’s statement is a moral monstrosity.
On the other hand, I note that Spong has, for years, advocated liberty of conscience on abortion. Is that less of a moral monstrosity than what Bp. Orama has said? I’m not being provocative; I’m geniunely curious of your opinion.
I don’t know precisely what Spong’s views on abortion are, though I imagine I’d likely disagree with them.
Nevertheless, it’s possible (IMO) to make a good faith argument for liberty on abortion on a variety of grounds. For instance, one might argue that the moral status of the (very early) fetus is difficult to discern, or that effective laws require a moral consensus that is currently lacking, etc. So I do think there’s a qualitative difference between that and what Orama said.
Amen to moral monstrosity…however, do you have a link to the official comments of +Orama? I just cannot trust a press service to get anything right, ever.
With regard to abortion, you say that a reasoned argument might be made. I agree with regard to the second option you cite, but the first is not a reasoned argument, to me. Once you start saying “there is doubt about the moral status of a fetus,” you are simply trying to explain something away. I think that once you know there is a life inside a womb, to act to cut short that life is the murder of an innocent, whatever moral gymnastics you engage in to justify it.
Chip, it’s possible. Apart from the UPI story I haven’t seen any other source (apart from blogs quoting that story).
On the second point, I confess to a bit of waffling on this. On the one hand I agree that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to draw a non-arbitrary line where a fetus suddenly (or gradually) obtains a certain moral status. On the other hand, I think I can see why someone would say that the death of, say, a ten day old embryo is different in a morallly significant way from the the death of, say, a newborn infant, small child, full grown adult, etc. E.g. the way we react to the news that someone we know had a miscarriage is not the same as the way we react to the death of someone’s child. Now, it may be that our gut intuitions are just inconsistent here or formed by irrelevant factors, but in any event I think we need to take note of them.
As has been mentioned, the down side of having an official sacred text is that people will read it. And then you get to regret what is says.
Lee,
You’re right that we’re informed by our gut intuition. And our sinful nature means that our gut intuition is to be more comfortable with victims who cannot speak for themselves or whom we cannot see.
Are you really saying that the death of a ten-day-old embryo, if it is an intended termination of a life who otherwise has a claim on you, has no moral significance? Less moral significance than a third-trimester termination?
The irony is that Christianity from its beginning did not discriminate in healing those who were of an untouchable caste or of low social status.
The way we react to a miscarriage is morally significant if we do not treat the parents as those who are mourning a human life. Their level of grief should be acceptable to us.
I’m not saying that the death of a ten-day-old embryo is less morally significant (much less that it has no moral significance), but that I can see how someone might think that without thereby being irrational. For example, if we had to choose between saving a 5-year-old child or a petri dish full of embryos from a burning building, what would be the right course of action? Reactions may vary, but I can certainly see how someone could hold that the deaths of an embryos aren’t morally equivalent to the death of a child even if they still have some moral claim on us. Are people who think that manifestly irrational?
And, of course, we should respect the grief of parents who suffer mscarriages, but do we (or they) in fact treat them as tragedies tantamount to losing a child? And what about the fact that many fetilizations (perhaps the majority) “spontaneously abort” without the mother even being aware of it? Are there countless unmourned human deaths happening in women’s wombs every day? Again, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t think that, but that in fact we don’t, at least most of us.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to Gaius Sempronius Gracchus Cancel reply