Abortion and the seamless garmet.

Anyone who has surfaced this blog realizes that I am Catholic. However, like most other people of faith, I find certain doctrines of the Catholic church, as most people do with their own church, very difficult to accept. The most obvious example of this is the Church's teaching on sex. Now since the Church, at least in our country, has elevated its teaching on this matter to the most exalted state, it is necessary to make some comments.
I have dealt with the issues of celibacy, contraception, masturbation, sexual thoughts etc in some detail. Also I have written that the stance of the Church on abortion needs to be examined. The Church position(at least the 'official' position) is that an abortion is an "instrinsic" evil and therefore supercedes all other Catholic social teaching is based, it seems quite clear, is based on the Catholic teaching of the "economy." The teaching of the "economy" is that religious/divine truth must not be revealed all at one time to new Christians in that these new Christians are not ready and cannot absorb the 'mysteries' in toto until later in their Christian experience. This, of course, was the argument between Kingsley and Newman which led to Newman writing his apologia.
Now we see this "economy" in play today in the Catholic position on abortion. The overwhelming majority of Christians, Catholics included, see a clear distinction between a few undifferented cells and a fetus just prior to birth. The question then becomes for almost all people as to when those cells develope enough to be called a "person." The embryo/fetus at the earliest stages has no traits of a person. No brain activity, no organs, no limbs and so forth. So these cells are not seen as a person by almost 90 percent of people.
But here comes the "economy'' or a slight variation thereof. The "average" person--the 90 per cent--are simply not capable of determining the line between a group of cells and a person. A debate on this issue would probably not be finally conclusive. So the Church teaches that the first cell formed after sexual intercourse is a"full person" just like your 3 month old grandson. No one really believes this, but as a wise mother, the discussion is ended says the Church. After all does not this position eliminate all the intricacies of what/when are these cells a person.
Now, I believe the Church has a very strong prejudice against sex in the sense that sex is an impediment to a full relationship to God. Obviously this is easily shown from the catechism and, of course, from the position that only celibates have any true authority in the Church. And, obviously, abortion is the final 'birth control.'
Now I believe the Church gives itself away on this issue when they take the position that the 'major' player in any abortion---the pregnant women---should not be punished by our laws. Even though the Church's logic, indeed its own statements, classify abortion as nothing less than murder. That a women who has an abortion is is guilty of "murder'' but is not responsible for such is clearly absurd.
Oh, but the Church says most women who have abortions do not realize it is killing a person. Therefore she is not responsible. But such an answer it to make things even more complicated. Does it mean that a woman's knowledge of biology is a factor in her guilt of killing a person? Does it mean that all people who support the right to abortion are excused? Does it mean that only the "right to life" people who have abortions should be tried for murder? Does it mean that since the Church teaches that abortion is murder, that only Catholic women should be tried for murder for having an abortion? Does it mean that since Catholic women have abortions at the same or greater rate than non-catholic, that the Church wants the state to enforce its belief on others? Or only on Catholic womem?
So what does it all mean to a Catholic like myself? Well it means the Church "fibs" a bit when it says one or a few cells are a"person" as almost all define a "person." Yes, I think the Church does "fib" for what they think is the greater good. And a believe such a teaching is part of the seamless garmet of anti-sex prejudice.