Representing “Material Cooperation with Intrinsic Evil”

Like the GOP as a whole, the Catholic Church is declining. Its members are seeking other spiritual avenues and the remaining rump is left to wallow in reactionary politics and theology.

On the day of reckoning, the flying spaghetti monster will cast that Catholic Priest into spaghetti hell.

Let them keep their narrow minds but make them pay taxes.

Your concern is touching, but my conservative parish has outgrown our facility just five years after constructing it, and judging by the numbers of adult converts each Easter we're continuing a rapid growth rate.

Our ministries (feeding senior citizens, providing shelter and provisions for unmarried women facing difficult pregnancies, transition services for Hispanic immigrants, feeding needy families for the holidays and year round, collecting blankets and clothing for the homeless, and visiting prisoners, to name just a few) keep us pretty busy so I guess we just haven't had time to focus on those important philosophical discussions that you prefer.

So far there have been many hands on deck to help with all of this; perhaps in time our ranks will shrink if we don't keep up with the demands of liberal orthodoxy but we'll cope.

So why should we take the actions of a single parish priest to be the bellwether of the entire American Catholic Church?

Also, the American Catholic Church is by far the most liberal wing of the Catholic Church, but attacking AmeriKKKa is so much more fun than pointing out where the real intolerance exists, huh?

Kind of like the chicken-shit gay activists protesting outside Mormon churches in Utah, rather than outside parishes and churches in, say, Watts. I wonder how that would play out for them.

Austin, are you actually of the opinion that a church holding to core teachings is being intolerant? It's not as though others aren't free to believe otherwise- they're just not free to redefine what the Catholic theology says about the matter. And the idea that this represents some kind of shift is absurd; the American Catholic Church has in fact tolerated dissent to the point that it now feels to some (like Jack, apparently) that having had the dialogue and then remaining unconvinced, the Church is now deciding to ignore the liberal opinion. Having a dialogue but not being persuaded is not the same as putting one's hands over one's ears and drowning out the sound of dissent.

There's a huge body of dialogue and exposition on the topic that's been published by the Vatican and outside sources, and arguing otherwise makes me agree with Jack's point about "deliberate ignorance."

If you are a bad little boy or girl, Santa will put coal in your stocking.

I think this might warrant more thought than my usual response to any discussion about organized religion. In this instance we have one parish high poobah making extreme statements that may or may not truly represent the philosophy of the entire catholic cult. I mean ultimately isn't it the pope that gets the messages from god? A similar situation seems to be playing out in responses to the the mormon cult's financial support for the recent anti-gay marriage propositions. Not all mormons necessarily supported those measures even though gay marriage is apparently an affront to their doctrines.

Is it fair to impugn an entire cult for their meddling in governmental affairs based on the actions of a few of the members or their leadership? Are these groups so big that they simply cannot be accountable for the many divergent beliefs held by their membership? Where does the buck stop? Isn't religion a voluntary exercise? What does it mean if you maintain a membership in some cult, yet do not follow the creed?

What I find most amusing is this priest's use of the sacrament as punishment.

Wow, so glad you thought that one through, lurxst.

I can assure you that the doors are not bolted inside the Church and there's no subliminal mind control being practiced.. Anyone is free to leave at any time. As for what it means if you maintain membership without believing the creed, I don't know, what is the word for that....

hmmm. Duplicity? That's close, I guess, but I can't quite think of one word that describes it. Why anyone would want to associate with a group if one doesn't agree with the group is beyond me. And why it's considered intolerant of the group to not bend to the will of those who dissent rather than recognizing the obvious intolerance of refusing to accept that a group of people might espouse beliefs that one does not agree with (and actually mean it rather than paying lip service to it) is at best highly hypocritical. No one is forced to be Catholic; if you don't agree with the Catechism, then find another church.

CS - "are you actually of the opinion that a church holding to core teachings is being intolerant?"

At times, certainly. The Church (capital C for Catholic!) has a long history of intolerant core principles, some of which have changed over time, and some have not. Some have basis in the Bible, others do not.

However, that was not my point. I was simply trying to point out that using one parish priest's actions as an indicator of the entire American Catholic Church is ludicrous. And that as a whole, the American Catholic Church is the most tolerant portion of the Catholic Church, or if you will, the most willing to reflect and consider if current doctrine is really expresses the will of God, or the will of the Church, which are not always the same thing.

I guess, too, my opinions are colored by the fact that while I see the concept of the parish (whatever the denomination) as often a force for good within a community, I see larger religious hierarchies as mainly a charade put on by power-hungry manipulators.

Plus, of course, I do not believe in divinity of any type anyway. The teachings of the Bible and similar texts are, to me, but the codifications handed down through generations describing the behaviors necessary for a working society. Those teachings are then too often twisted and manipulated by those who seek to control others, but that is human nature.

OK, but what I'm getting at is that surely people when they step back and look at it see that any group should have the right to freely associate and define itself according to views or values- and that shouldn't be called intolerance. In fact, the converse is true- for people outside the Church to attempt to shut down the right to associate in that manner is actually the intolerant position.*



That's not to say that people aren't free to disagree- of course they are. If you don't believe in the creed of the Church, you're likely to find a huge number of things that you disagree with and that's everyone's prerogative. But to be tolerant, the criticism has to be "I disagree with that view," not, "that person ought not to be allowed to hold to that view."



* and in regard to the comment about having churches pay taxes, I wouldn't oppose that so long as it wasn't selective and so long as it allowed churches to operate their nonprofit activities in a tax exempt manner (keeping that separate from religous activities, just as tons of secular organizations do that partner for-profits with not-for-profits.) But the way it was expressed was unclear whether the author was wanting to specifically revoke tax exemption in this case, which would pretty clearly violate the second clause of the First Amendment (showing favoritism for one religious group over another.)

No one is forced to be Catholic; if you don't agree with the Catechism, then find another church.

CStanley--

Do you support the decision of this particular priest to deny communion to Obama supporters?

I'm sure you know the Church (capital "C" and all!) is opposed to the War in Iraq. Do you think supporters of that war ought to be denied communion?

GS - you beat me to it.

I was never attempting to deny people the right of association, free worship, or to set their rules. I was commenting on this one priest's actions.

He went beyond saying 'Obama believes something the Church does not, and should not be allowed Communion (were he Catholic)', to 'you may not support anyone who holds views against Church teachings without facing loss of Communion'. That is no idle threat to a true Catholic.

So, taken to the extreme (which is a good way to see if certain actions and views stand up), by his standards, you could only vote for a candidate that agreed with and supported every Catholic viewpoint. Sorry, but that is the Church (in the form of that priest) stepping directly into the political ring.

And governing in the US, due to its laws and the Constitution, would absolutely preclude any President, and almost any elected official in any capacity, from reaching that bar. So, that means, in effect, using that priest's standards, Catholics cannot vote unless they give up communion.

Do you support that, CS? I know you do not, and you know I am no basher of religion, either, but there is no escaping that this priest overstepped his bounds.

Period.

Part of the problem though is that he didn't say what you guys think he said (at least the quotes I've seen don't substantiate the way it's being reported.) I've seen specific quotes from him saying that he WILL NOT DENY COMMUNION to anyone who presents themselves. He gave a homily saying that people who voted for Obama should examine their conscience first, and that he does feel they are in a state requiring confession. I know that sounds harsh if you aren't a practicing Catholic- but consider that those of us who take it seriously also feel we need to confess all sorts of things including missing Sunday Mass without a valid reason such as serious illness.

Truthfully, it does get sticky for me when a particular politiician is being named. I think the priests ought to keep the discussions in the abstract (even though in a case like this the connection between the abstract and the reality would be quite obvious but it still makes a difference IMO.) But from what I've read of the actual priest's words (vs. the way they are being reported), it doesn't seem that he's doing anything beyond the normal pastoral role of a priest- they're not called upon to judge the conscience of those who present themselves to receive the Eucharist, but they have a pastoral duty to remind the congregation that they themselves are supposed to examine their own consciences- and a duty to give the information on Church teaching so that the flock can make an informed examination of conscience.

Again, I'm sure it sounds odd if you aren't a practicing Catholic or if you are one in a liberal American Catholic parish. But that's actually the way it's supposed to be.

What's at stake is the Church's right to declare its own teaching. I realize it gets uncomfortable when, as you say, Austin, people are made to feel that they must give up Communion if they can't in good conscience agree. But why should the Church not have the right to determine what Communion means? Turn it around- does the state have the right to say that the Church can't deny Communion (which isn't even what's happening here?)

And even if you still disagree with me, at least consider that this is coming in response to liberals who have injected politics into the Church by trying to reassure Catholic voters that prochoice positions are in line with Church teaching when they categorically are not. Biden and Pelosi have both recently twisted the Church teaching in that manner, and several Dem party connected PACs are inserting themselves to influence liberal Catholic voters as well.

I used to feel more concern about the Church 'crossing the line' as you put it- but when I see that others are crossing it from the other side I feel this is necessary.

CS - you never addressed the main point of my last point. Obviously the State cannot and should not dictate how a religion defines itself.

But where is the line drawn, CS, on the Church's mandating of whom to vote for? Again, try and find any candidate that 100% meets the strictures of any given church 'X'. You cannot. So, does that mean the devout cannot vote?

Here is another hypothetical. Assume you are an Evangelical, and your church has declared you cannot vote for any candidate that supports homosexual marriage, and any candidate that supports abortion, or you will be excommunicated. Candidate A supports homosexual marriage but not abortion, candidate B the exact opposite. How do you vote? Can you vote? I know I have set up a very simplistic strawman, but it makes the point.

But to make it even clearer, if you MUST vote as the Church requires to remain a member in good standing, then you are not in a Church, you are in a cult.

It's hard to discuss if you don't know the entirety of the Catholic Church's teachings, Austin. Abortion and right to life for the weakest in society is a fundamental principle. No one is saying that a politician has to have all positions in accordance with all teachings- it's just that this one is a core principle (since defining life at conception means that abortion is murder unless it's performed to save the life of the mother- so equivocating on a politicians stance on this is akin to voting for someone who wants to wipe murder laws off of the books- would you think it wrong for a church to condemn that or counsel it's members that a vote for that candidate wasn't in keeping with the church's beliefs?)



It's also hard to explain exactly what excommunication means, because most non-Catholics (and probably now a majority of Catholics) think of it as a casting out or a punishment but it's not. As I said earlier, we're called to make an examination of conscience before recieving Communion- and that includes things that others might consider trivial like the Mass obligation. Why is it then so odd for priests to express a pastoral duty to remind parishioners of a serious moral issue that they will be involved in when they cast their vote (particularly in a case where there's a sharp distinction between the two candidates- I think many people who voted for Obama seem unaware of how far to the left he is on this issue and the ramifications not only of SCOTUS nominees but also pushing for the FOCA which will overturn all of the work done by right to life groups over the past few decades.)



I don't think your hypothetical applies because I don't feel there's any logical justification for such an extreme anti-gay agenda. Perhaps to make the analogy a bit closer, you'd have to come up with something absurd like saying that an evangelical church tells it's members that they'd be out of step if they support some candidate who wants to codify homosexual marriage and abolish heterosexual marriage- again, just making up a farcical example to show the extremism involved and the instance where perhaps it would be warranted for a church to actually oppose a particular candidate. Add in that some Democrat funded groups are proclaiming to the church members some false doctrine that supports this position, claiming that this position is compatible with their beliefs- and then why shouldn't the church be able to defend itself against those false proclamations?



Do you see where I'm going with this?  I'm sure we'd at best have to agree to disagree and that's fine- I wouldn't expect you to agree with the Church doctrine. But I hope I'm pointing out where I see the lines, what I'm defending, and what I'm not defending.



And of course I strongly disagree with your cult comment. A Church would be pointless if it didn't organize itself around a set of core principles. I think you are grossly overstating this and perhaps misunderstanding that this is an opposition based on principle due to one core issue; it's not the Church giving us premarked ballots that we have to fill out each election cycle.



And besides, there's ample evidence that Catholics are voting however they damn well please anyway, so obviously the bishops and priests who speak out on this aren't being coercive and aren't even very persuasive. Doesn't that show that this isn't some sort of attempt at mind control (no one is being forced to wear scarlet "O" signs, I assure you.)

To answer your question, George:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/09/denver-bi...

CS - I was born, raised and married a Catholic. I came to atheism as an adult.

And I said my example was unrealistic - it is to make a point. Church's certainly should talk to parishioners about about how to run their own lives, but not condemn them for their political choices. Shall we go back to the Heresy of Thought days?

Look, I think I said earlier that I get uncomfortable when names are named (would that a lot of liberal churchgoers had that same discomfort, but I digress.)

But I think you're still overstating it to say that people are having their political choices 'condemned'. The way I see it, there's an obligation for priests to tell parishioners if certain political choices are considered immoral by the Church. Then the parishioners decide if they disagree with that, they either have to reconcile it or recognize that they don't believe the same things as the Church teaches.

A lot of it depends on how it's said, and from a few isolated quotes I'm not prepared to say that I think Fr. Newman was above reproach on that.

Also, let me add an analogy that I feel is more apt.

If there were a church which held as a core teaching that war is never morally acceptable, then I don't think it would be wrong for that church's leaders to tell its members that a vote for McCain would have been against the teachings of that church. I wonder if those who oppose the Iraq War but are prochoice can see the principle involved more clearly when you have agreement with the stance that's being taken?

Aren't you slicing it mighty thin here, CStanley?

The priest told people who supported Obama they were putting their immortal souls in danger if they took communion without repenting their votes for Obama, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Read all about it, including quotes from his pastoral letter, courtesy of the Associated Press.

You're also slicing it kind of thin on the issue of war. It's not just some theoretical church that opposes the war in Iraq. It is true that the Catholic Church is not pacifist. But the Church does believe in the Doctrine of the Just War. The Iraq War has been opposed by two successive Popes--John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

And, CStanley, you linked to a statement by the Bishop of Denver, but you never answered my straight questions.

Do you, CStanley, support denying communion to Obama voters?

Do you, CStanley, support denying communion to supporters of the Iraq War?

And since you brought up that statement from the Bishop of Denver, do you think Joe Biden should be denied communion?

Most people begin to learn about the age of two what "no" means, and that life (and in this case, religion, and for that matter our body of laws) is not a cafeteria or menu from which you may select some things but refuse others, or even act as if something else were in its place.

Oh my.

Of course people choose some things from life and refuse others.

Of course people choose some things from religion and refuse others.

Of course people choose some things from "our body of laws" and refuse others.

What happens in reality is that some people deny they are doing this and then feel themselves entitled to the high moral ground, often on the basis of understanding what the word "no" means.

George, I don't support denying Communion and apparently neither does Fr. Newman (and almost all bishops.) Fr. Newman explicitly said that he will not deny the sacrament- but he did ask people to make an examination of conscience first.

I thought the piece by Ed Morrissey explained the difference in Catholic theology between the issue of abortion and the determination of 'just wars', but perhaps this is the article where he went into more detail about that.

When the Church offers an opinion on whether or not a war is just, it isn't a moral absolute. There's a recognition of the complexity, and that the war itself can have a purpose of securing a more just situation for the people involved, and thus in some opinions may be justified even if that's not where the Church came down in this case.

Abortion doesn't have the same latitude. Innocent life shouldn't be taken under any justification except self defense (life of the mother.) Again, some people may disagree, but then they shouldn't proclaim themselves to be in good standing with Church teaching.

So no, I would not deny Communion to voters or to those politicians- but I do support the Church's right to tell them that they are misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

Of course people choose some things from religion and refuse others.
People are free to do so but when they do, they open themselves up to legtimate criticism especially if they try to persuade others that their cafeteria style religion is actually what is being taught by the Church when it's not.

CS I wonder if your church is in a well to do suburb or say the inner city of Atlanta? I know in Detroit that the Catholic church is more concerned with real estate value than serving it's flock. Even the hub suburbs in the Detroit area, Warren, Ferndale and St. Clair Shores, churches are shuttered for Taj Mahals in Romeo or Rochester.

We're in a suburb which is a mixed area- some well to do neighborhoods and some down and out ones. It's not inner city but there's plenty of poverty in the surrounds and we focus on that rather than 'Taj Mahal' facilities.

Parishes are like anything else- only as good as the leadership and people who take part. We have a good archbishop and a decent pastor, great deacons, and a laity that wants to be involved.

Fr. Newman explicitly said that he will not deny the sacrament- but he did ask people to make an examination of conscience first.

Oh my.

He said people who voted for Obama have to repent it in order to take communion or they are putting their souls in mortal danger--or else, in other words, they are going to Hell.

It's not hard to understand what he said, CStanley.

Is it?

Go ahead and parse the differences between abortion and just war if you like, CStanley--but don't claim you're not making a different choice off the menu when you disagree.

Also, the Religious Right has been involved in politics since at least the first election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That's 28 years. In all but eight of those 28 years, a Republican was President.

Roe v Wade has not been overturned in that time.

Nothing in that time period has been done judicially or legislatively to stop a single abortion.

Nothing.

Not a thing.

Religious voters have been played for fools by Republicans for decades.

I don't see how anyone can look at recent history objectively and claim otherwise.

I don't understand how your comment about picking off of the menu applies here, George, and I also don't understand why people outside the Church want to tell people within it what we should or shouldn't be doing. If you disagree, that's absolutely fine- don't become Catholic.

And further, although you're broader point about politicians using certain groups by paying lip service to a cause is certainly true and it applies in many cases to the religious right and the Republican party, you are wrong in saying that there's been no legislative progress within the prolife movement. In my state (GA) alone there have been many laws passed for informed consent, waiting periods, etc, and during the time period you describe the per capita abortion rate has decreased 39%.

I would think that at least some people who are moderately pro-choice would agree that this is an example of making abortion safe, available, and more rare.

But Obama has promised to promote and sign federal legislation which would overturn most if not all of those state laws- and that's precisely why this has become a hot button issue with conservative Catholics and others in the prolife movement. It's also quite possible that thousands of Catholic not for profit hospitals will shut down rather than be forced to perform abortions if legislation is passed which would create that scenario.

Of course it remains to be seen whether Obama really will stoke the culture wars when he claims to be seeking unity- and if not, then perhaps he's one of those politicians who also uses certain voters (the NARAL voters) for his own political advancement without actual intent to follow through on promises.

CStanley--

Are you actually crediting a law about informed consent for reducing the abortion rate 39% over the time period I described, which was 28 years?

But no, I see you're crediting "many laws" for reducing the abortion rate 39% over 28 years.

Please cite them.

And I'd like you to explain what you mean by this:

It's also quite possible that thousands of Catholic not for profit hospitals will shut down rather than be forced to perform abortions

Honestly, CStanley: who forces anybody to perform abortions? Who is going to force a hospital to shut down?

And I see you've ignored the part about people who voted for Obama being damned. Nothing else to say on that?

George: I don't know how to answer your question about damnation to your satisfaction because it deals with an understanding of Catholic theology that I think you lack. Best I can explain it would be that the statement you are referring to indicated that the Church's teaching says that certain acts put an individual in mortal danger of damnation- not that the Church is damning the person, but that it's pointing out an action that we believe is endangering the person's soul. It's not a punishment like a sentencing for a crime- it's a warning. If someone in good conscience does not believe that this action is endangering in that way, they have two choices: ignore the warning, or leave the Church in recognition that he/she is not of the same core beliefs.

Honestly, CStanley: who forces anybody to perform abortions? Who is going to force a hospital to shut down?
The FOCA which NARAL and Obama support would force the Church to either shut down its hospitals or act in violation of its religious beliefs by performing abortions. A medical facility would not be allowed to claim religious exemptions from performing the procedure- which has been a longstanding legal principle ever since Roe was enacted. This bill would change that and force the Church to make a choice; since it cannot go against its religious principles, it would then have to shut down the many hospitals it currently operates on a not-for-profit basis.

As for the reduction of abortions- I'm sure there are many factors but common sense and anecdotal evidence show that many of the laws passed help women to make other choices besides abortion. If you are interested in seeing the list of laws, go to the NARAL website where they grade each state. My state of GA got a "D" rating because of the numerous laws we've passed.

I'm going to have to end it there- I'm pretty ill today and won't be online much longer. Just wanted to let you know that if I still haven't anwered any of your questions thoroughly enough, it's not for lack of trying or being dismissive- I'm just not online. I'd be glad to revisit the discussion at a later time if it comes up again.

when exactly was it the church decided to move the point of moral considerability from "quickening" to conception? Austin, would you happen to know?

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church when he dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869.

Then Leo XIII (1878-1903) issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for previous centuries ended. The church required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This position has continued to the present time.

AR:

thanks, the history is appreciated....