I'm Done Now.

[richardf8]

With extending anything resembling tolerance for the Catholic Church.

My reasons can be found in this pastoral letter that chipuni has been kind enough to reproduce in his journal.

I had been holding this cartoon back, as being perhaps too hateful for public consumption. But I have decided that such courtesies are misplaced.



Most irksome is this paragraph:
There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

This basically requires that a Catholic voter relinquish his right to cast his ballot in secret by confessing and doing penance for it. It is precisely to oppose this sort of fear of retaliation that we have a secret ballot in this country.

The paper and ink that have been flying out of the Church in an effort to co-opt our political system constitute nothing more nor less than an act of War, being nothing more, nor less than an attempt to undermine the Government of the United States of America via spiritual blackmail.

The Catholic Church has more blood on its hands than any other extant institution on earth. For it to speak in such sanctimonious terms of the high value of fetal life and the urgency of overturning Roe v. Wade so that women can once again die as a result of back-alley abortions is the peak of hypocrisy. It is apparently acceptable, however, to vote for pro death-penalty politicians, in spite of the fact that the death penalty violates church doctrine as well.

This does not even begin to touch upon the hypocrisy of a church that labels two people of the same gender who seek legal recognition of their commitment to each other "deviant" while refusing to deal in any meaningful way with priests who pursue transitory, non-consensual sexual relationships with children.

It should be noted that this is in no way an attack on the Catholic laity, who, for the most part, I expect will greet this pastoral letter as one more indicator of the degree to which the church is out of touch with the realities in its parishes.

Comments

[lordrunningclam.livejournal.com]

Aw, c'mon. Tell us what you really think.

To be fair to the Catholic Church, what they are saying isn't much different than what fundamentalist protestants are saying. It's just that they don't have a singular authority to voice it.

Also, as a former Catholic, a Catholic high school graduate, and one who was subjected to at least 11 years of Sunday Catechism classes, my feeling all along was that most American Catholics do in fact regard such pronouncements with a kind of disconnect. Married Catholics aren't supposed to use birth control, including condoms, during sex. The simple fact that none of my classmates came from huge families indicates how well that admonition worked. Many of my friends parents were also divorced and re-married, also against Church doctrine. My own parents stayed together, but it had nothing to do with the Church.

That its not to say that such pronouncements aren't greeted more seriously in what might be called the "global south," and that is a shame.

The French are most revealing in this regard. An overwhelmingly Catholic country, they simply do what is practical in the modern world. Essentially all of the "evils" railed against in the pastoral letter are practiced with gusto. They simply understand that to what extent one follows Church teachings is a personal choice. It is only the rise of looney bin fundamentalism in this country that keep such pronouncements from being laughed at openly here. The only thing that keeps more French priests out of more trouble with "children" is the lower age of consent.

[richardf8]

To be fair to the Catholic Church, what they are saying isn't much different than what fundamentalist protestants are saying.

And I can assure you that I have no less respect for these bishops than I do for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Also, as a former Catholic, a Catholic high school graduate, and one who was subjected to at least 11 years of Sunday Catechism classes, my feeling all along was that most American Catholics do in fact regard such pronouncements with a kind of disconnect.

That is the reality on the ground. By making an overt attempt to keep people from Communion based on the way they vote, is an attempt to try to change that reality. I predict a lot of empty pews.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

The main commenter on that letter thinks it does not reflect the official position of the Catholic Church (i.e., the Pope). I'd like to agree.

Against all expectations, I find myself drawing close to Catholicism. My friends have been persuading me that it's logically very probable to be the faith most representative of God. The goodness of a religion should not be measured by the goodness of its constituents, any more than the quality of a hospital should be measured by the status of its inpatients. I'm not about to preach to you, but I ask that you not lose your tolerance for the Church based on the hypocrisy of various members.

[richardf8]

The main commenter on that letter thinks it does not reflect the official position of the Catholic Church (i.e., the Pope).

The pope has not yet weighed in on this issue. Recent encyclicals from Rome, however, on subjects like Gay Marriage tend to carry language that dehumanizes the subject. The problem, though, is that he is not a voice in the wilderness. That cartoon was drawn when another bishop, in Louisiana I think, requested that politicians who are pro-choice/pro gay marriage be refused communion. And even New York's Archbishop (is it still John Cardinal O'Connor?) has been growing increasingly shrill.

The goodness of a religion should not be measured by the goodness of its constituents, any more than the quality of a hospital should be measured by the status of its inpatients.

Please examine this analogy; it seems to suggest that if every patient in a hospital is suffering from a staph infection, I should not think ill of that hospital? If I cannot judge a hospital by the status of its patients, just what should I judge it by?

Of course, for most of my life I have judged the Church by its Laity, and US Catholics, by and large, have a great deal of common sense. The problem with a pastoral letter like this one is that it is a very plain attempt to undermine that. To use the Church:Hospital analogy, this guy's the doctor examining patients without washing his hands and transmitting staph to them.

Given what more and more Bishops are spewing, and the fact that the American Catholic Laity is a lot more sensible than the leaders, I fully expect that if the Hierarchy insists on waging this culture war, it will be faced with a much needed reformation. One thing that really impresses me about American Catholic Laity is their willingness to tell the Church it's wrong. One thing that confirms my ire at the Church is its ability to completely dismiss the Laity for pointing it out.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I talked with a friend about this, and you were right that the Church officially denies communion to the pro-abortion and pro-same-sex-marriage voters. But you're wrong that it's as one-sided as that: other bishops have announced that those who support the Iraq War or the death penalty can't have communion. I actually recall seeing one such statement.

Excommunication is not a punishment. It's a recognition of the fact that the individual does not subscribe to the church's beliefs. For said person to partake in "communion" would be false.

You're free to disagree with the Church, but please extend it the same courtesy you extend to all other faiths you don't hold.

[richardf8]

You're free to disagree with the Church, but please extend it the same courtesy you extend to all other faiths you don't hold.

It gets that. The amount of anger I will openly express against a faith is directly proportional to the degree I deem its public actions detrimental to my safety and well being and that of the people I care about. The RCC's recent political activism, like that of Falwell and Robertson, is something I regard as a clear and present danger to those things, and I am responding accordingly.

Rest assured that were my own religion to behave in a similar fashion, it too would find itself in my crosshairs. Judaism is, however, very standoffish with regard to the government. Orthodox Judaism will tell its congregants not to use condoms, not to have abortions, and not to engage in homosexual relationships. However, it generally does not care what its host nation's opinions are; a Jewish community is supposed to govern itself according to precepts of Jewish law (Halakhah, roughly the equivalent of Canon Law for Catholics). Now take a politician like Senator Lieberman -- He would never get my vote. He votes in ways that seek to impose Halakhah upon the secular government, and I oppose him on that account. But -- and here's the crucial distinction -- there is no authority telling him that if he does not vote that way he will be expelled from the Jewish faith. There was no one telling Wellstone that if he cast a pro-choice vote, he would not be permitted an Aliyah (the privilege of reading from the Torah before the congregation) unless he recanted and repented.

Excommunication is not a punishment. It's a recognition of the fact that the individual does not subscribe to the church's beliefs. For said person to partake in "communion" would be false.

This is truly a delicate issue, and one of the reasons I think the RCC in America is heading toward a Schism.

Communion, the Lord's Supper, is an expression for most laity of unity with Christ. I suspect that in the eyes of most laity in the US, this is separate and distinct from unity with the Church. As much as the church likes to assert itself as the Body of Christ, it seems a lot of Catholics aren't buying. Thus, they vote their consciences, not the Church's, and see no problem in taking communion. Because if they have prayed on something, reflected on it, and come to a conclusion that differs from Church teaching on a matter, they may not see any falsehood in taking Communion. The church, however, is insisting that such reflection counts for nothing, and that its edicts override the individual's relationship to Christ.

This is precisely the sort of dissonance that resulted in the Reformation, and is likely to result in another.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Religion in politics is indeed a tricky subject for Christians. We may concede to the legalization of many things our faith forbids. Divorce, for instance, will at worst inspire moral degradation but at best grant us the option to choose between good and bad. But when the practice directly and very adversely affects others, as is believed of abortion, the Church can't very well tolerate it. To them, it's not a matter of imposing their religious beliefs on the unwilling pagans, but a matter of saving lives.

I looked up "Roman Catholic" in Merriam Webster's Collegiate dictionary: "of, relating to, or being a Christian church having a hierarchy of priests and bishops under the pope, a liturgy centered in the Mass, veneration of the Virgin Mary and saints, clerical celibacy, and a body of dogma including transubstation and papal infallibility." The Americans you speak of fall short of this last point. I'm not sure if they're creating a schism or just not as religious as they might claim. Either way, it makes sense that the RCC would not recognize the membership of anyone who blatantly opposes their doctrine. They'd be hypocritical to do so.

[richardf8]

But when the practice directly and very adversely affects others, as is believed of abortion, the Church can't very well tolerate it. To them, it's not a matter of imposing their religious beliefs on the unwilling pagans, but a matter of saving lives.

One of the reasons that Roe v. Wade was decided the way it was decided is that legal bans on abortion did not prevent them, and abortions that could be obtained by poor women were often lethal. That means the death of the mother, the death of the fetus, and the destruction of any potential for that woman to subsequently bring lives into the world. The rich, of course, could always pay an obstetrician to perform a procedure that would not become a matter of record. Thus, when abortions are illegal, women are afforded unequal protection. This is why it gets treated as a civil rights issue by its proponents. So the question I would put to you is this: if the cost in lives of prohibiting abortion exceeds the cost in lives of permitting abortion, which position saves more lives?

I know one woman who had an abortion, and then went on to have two kids (all three fetuses were sired by the same man, BTW). Had that first abortion been botched leaving her to bleed to death, that would have been the life of the woman, the fetus, and the two subsequent children; four lives that would have winked out instead of the one.

This seems a rather strange definition of "Saving Lives."

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Until yesterday, I'd taken your position. What we have here is a battle of data. Anti-abortionists tell me that (1) doctors severely underreport the number of women who die from legal abortions, (2) studies indicate that the number of abortions did drop with illegalization, taking into account the reluctance to report such things, (3) women who get abortions usually regret it later, and (4) doctors who perform abortions are ones who have trouble getting other medical jobs. A quick search gave me http://www.abortionfacts.com to back their position -- the data are rather frightening. I haven't found confirmation of points 3 & 4 yet, but the first are more important.

[richardf8]

You've left me speechless. I mean, abortionfacts, sponsored by Heritage House, is not exactly a clearinghouse for objective data. It is a conservative think tank providing data that is at best skewed, at worst, fiction. Overturning Roe V. Wade is an agenda item for them. It is not in the interest of that agenda to provide you with full information.

If you take your information from anti-abortionists, and then turn to an anti-abortion think-tank for corroboration you are only getting what the anti-abortionists want you to believe.

Here are a few other links for you, so that you can get some information that will at least provide an opposing view:

http://www.naral.org/Issues/science/science_fs.cfm

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/factsheets.htm

I'm also going to recommend a book that has nothing to do with either abortion or religion. It is called "Technopoly" and was written by Neil Postman. It is a very good primer on how to approach studies, surveys, and similar research with an eye toward discerning how the research may be skewed.

And Steve, you seem to be in a space where the information you are getting and basing some fairly important life choices on is being fairly tightly controlled. I'm going to suggest that you take a good look at the works of some other Catholics as well. John Carroll's "Constantine's Sword" is a history of the Church that is certainly worth a look, and some of John Shelby Spong's work may be worth a gander.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Even as I wrote my last post to you, I feared I was making the fallacy you say I made. Data wars bother me to no end. I'd better see about a source like "Technopoly." In the meantime, I'll ask what others have to say against the links you provided -- it will not satisfy me just to hear them say, "No, those are the biased sites."

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I've had more time to consult and think about the matter. One thing I'd like to point out right away is that Planned Parenthood doesn't exactly have a spotless reputation either. Even my mom, a former ZPG employee who's very pro-abortion, does not like PP's defense of eugenics. Racial issues aside, her healthy cousin wouldn't have been born if eugenics were in full practice. And as I understand it, PP's very founder, Margaret Sanger, opposed abortion -- along with Susan B. Anthony, Emma Goldman, Mary Wollstonecraft, and other prominent feminists.

My friend sent me these sites, the second and fourth of which are under no religious influence that I can tell. I especially like the second:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
http://www.learninc.org/
http://www.pop.org

I pointed out to him that while they do have me convinced that it's better for the individual not to have an abortion, they don't address the question of whether a ban would improve the situation. He said that statistics aren't the most important thing. In his words, "All killing would be much safer if it were made legal and took place in clinics. Does that mean it should be legalized to protect killers?"

Before you contend that the fetus is not human, let me cite a very secular essay by Don Marquis, "Why Abortion Is Immoral," which I wrote a final paper on in a philosophy course. In it, he determines that the precise reason we consider killing prima facie wrong is that it eliminates all possible futures for the victim. For this reason, it does not matter if the fetus is already human or not, because it is set to become human and assuredly has possible futures of value.

What the abortion seeker really needs are love and forgiveness, treatment for the psychological and spiritual trauma that abortion demonstrably causes, and support from society (her employer, the government, the men in her life) so that she will not be driven to the extreme of killing her own children out of socioeconomic fear. The abortion industry, even legal, is full of corruption and exploitation, spreading the ideology that keeps women in a place where they sense little choice but to kill their children, to rid themselves of a "disease" rather than an ability. It is because of this ideology that employers have poor (if any) maternity policies, and fathers encourage abortion to avoid responsibility more than ever.

Another point I'll add, without help from anyone but the Washington Post: When abortion is legal, fetuses are not legally regarded as human, period. If a woman gets beaten into having a miscarriage, the culprit is charged with battery, not murder. The experience has led many a mother to turn pro-life, against lifelong expectations.

[richardf8]

You raise some interesting points. The Marquis quote is probably the best bit, but even he was not agenda-less. Not working for Hearst as he did. But even so.

Here are my beliefs, take them or leave them as you will. The body is a vessel for the soul. When the body is broken the soul is freed from it. It does not end, but is in fact free to seek out another vessel. Abortion therefore does not hamper that soul's entry into the world, and, given the circumstances under which most women are likely to choose an abortion, can actually improve the set of possible futures available to it. I understand that in Catholic terms this is Heresy. But whether the Catholic church considers me a Heretic is not something care a whit for. For me, they have no authority.

Now to the next point:
What the abortion seeker really needs are love and forgiveness, treatment for the psychological and spiritual trauma that abortion demonstrably causes, and support from society (her employer, the government, the men in her life) so that she will not be driven to the extreme of killing her own children out of socioeconomic fear.

These are fine words. However, measured against the actions of the politicians that are most adamantly anti-abortion, they are nothing short of a wishful fantasy.

Case in point: The adamantly anti-abortion Governor of Minnesota, after being unable to get the Senate to agree to a sucker punch of a budget, asserted his executive privilege to balance the budget when the legislature was no longer in session by cutting MinnesotaCare, our Health Care program for the poor, and by cutting school budgets yet again. This is a governor who took a "No New Tax" pledge and has gutted the compassion from our government to honor it. He has, however, proposed a sales tax increase to pay for a new stadium so that the owner of the Twins won't have to.

Our President supports his pet war and his pet tax-cuts by cutting funding for head-start, education, and childcare, even as he demands more hours of work from single mothers under "welfare reform." He too is adamantly anti-abortion.

The problem is that these people who profess to so greatly value fetal life abandon it the moment it becomes an actual baby. They also do everything they can, like insist on "abstinence only" sex-education that leaves women poorly equipped to prevent a pregnancy should they engage in sexual activity, to keep women from the knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy. And that, in the end, is the goal - to make sure that pregnancy is the moral consequence of sex, and to make sure that that pregnancy will ruin the mother. Doesn't a baby deserve to be something more than punishment meted out by a jackboot government?

This is the fundamental hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement in America -- it does everything it can to see the fetus carried to term only to abandon it in the birthing room. (Unless it's white, in which case the possibility of adoption may be raised).

So, in the final analysis, people who are not going to assume responsibility for a child have no business insisting that it be carried to term.

That all being said, all of my cards are on the table as regards abortion. You can respond, if you wish, especially if any of these points give you food for thought. However, do understand that you will not see a counterparry from me on the subject. If I have not persuaded you of my views by now, repetition won't lend me success. Likewise with you: you have put forth some of the most cogent arguments I've seen on the subject, and yet have not persuaded me. Which means we have reached the point in discussion where we must agree to disagree.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Glad you found my case admirable this time.

Does your theology of wandering souls correspond to Jewish lore, or is it unique to yourself? It sounds as tho one could approve almost any killing with a belief like that.

The anti-abortionist hypocrisy you cite is representative of the politicians, not the Church. I don't know that it's as bad as you say, either: I've heard nothing of non-white Americans today not being suggested adoption, and they likely want to maximize the number of births for the sake of life, not punishment.

At this point, all I ask is that you recognize that the Church means well for everyone, whether it achieves well or not. Your "banal" friend may think it anti-life and destructive, but it thinks the very exact opposite. To me, that's grounds for a semblance of tolerance.

I hope to God that I will never be in a situation where my opinion on legalizing abortion makes a practical difference. I fear that whichever decision I make will be wrong.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

You think its opposition to the Iraq War is "anti-life and destructive"?

[richardf8]

I think this is a question worth pondering. It is easy for me to see how the Iraq war can be justified by someone of conscience. After all Saddam's practices of cutting people's tongues out and killing their families while they watched could hardly be considered to be in harmony with Natural Law.

Thus, apart from the Pope's seemingly arbitrary pronouncement, it is difficult for me to see why the anti-war position should enjoy a privilege over the pro-war position.

In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that I was never opposed to the idea of removing Saddam Hussein. My chief reason for opposing the war was the certainty I felt (now borne out) that Bush would botch it as badly as he's botched everything else he's ever touched.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

What do you mean, "anti-healthy open emotions"?

[richardf8]

I don't find it "hateful" at all, just straight-shooting.

Thank you, but as its creator, I know what I was feeling when I drew it; I know what I was feeling when I decided to publish. The trope, that target group (t), is clandestinely controlling the government, is a common trope of hate-speech, and thus I'm a little uncomfortable about having used it.

But.

The efforts of the Church have, in this case, been anything but clandestine. It has come out in a variety of public statements ranging from Papal Encyclicals to Pastoral letters, to statements to journalists that the Church is seeking to assert control over its members to affect the outcome of American politics. Thus, in the final analysis, I am not accusing the Church of anything it itself is not announcing, although the caption on the final panel is inflammatory. It is so because it expresses a deeply held fear.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

You're ex-Irish? :)