Well, duh! Note the presence of the word “absurdity”. Please reread!
Oh, for heaven’s sake, people, THIS IS PART OF MY POINT!!!
Yeah, so much for compassion, forgiveness, and engagement. We shouldn’t hang around with those who have fucked up, just in case it rubs off, or we some how imply “moral equivalency”.
This is really starting to depress me…
well duh. The church sees moral implications in establishing a working relationship with an organization that provides abortion services…this is a surprise?
It’s a bit hard to really discuss this issue WITHOUT discussing the morality/immorality of abortion (and that is something I would rather not do in THIS thread)…
You seem to be suggesting that being morally neutral on the subject of abortion services is a GOOD thing…and perhaps from a pro choice viewpoint it is.
From a pro life viewpoint (like the RCC) , one CAN’T be morally neutral or ambiguous on the issue.
Surely you see the difference in “hanging around” people who are addicted to drugs…offering them compassion, forgiveness and engagement…
AND forming a working association with the drug dealers themselves?
You’re right. We don’t seem to be communicating.
In your OP, it seemed that you were castigating the RCC for making saving a baby equal to aborting it:
Your statement pretty clearly says to me that the RCC equated the act of abortion to the act of adoption. You then seemed to take umbrage that the RCC would say they were the same. Obviously, they did not say that they were the same, but that setting up value-neutral counselling would give the appearance that they were the same.
As to PP not making a statement on morality, that appears to be technically true. I am not opposing PP’s efforts. However, the law of unintended consequences would seem to be on the side of the RCC, here. Their position is that accepting the co-habitation of adoption and abortion advocates would lend the appearance that the two choices are equal. I don’t see how any other conclusion can be drawn. A person being given a choice between choosing abortion or choosing adoption is being given a simple value-free choice to make. If one’s position regarding abortion is that it is homicide, then supporting an agency that presents it as a simple choice is supporting what appears to be a declaration that the two choices are equal.
I have no problem with you objecting to their decision. Obviously, if they had someone in place to at least make their case to a pregnant woman, they might, indeed, redirect some potential abortions to become adoptions. However, if you believe that their presence would not send a message to potential clients that “either choice is OK” then I’m afraid you misunderstand how many people would respond to that situation.
Recently, the Klan in Missouri wanted to underwrite portions of programming time on KWMU in St Louis. The station was adamant that they would not take sponsorship money from them…the case ended up in court.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups145.html
While I am not comparing the Klan to PP, I AM comparing the attitude of the station to the attitude of the RCC in Chicago…Even at the risk of losing some money, they did not want to create an appearance of neutrality or ambiguity on this issue (which they thought would hurt their standing with the African-American community)
Boris-no. The Catholic BELIEFS-in the angels, the saints, the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Blessed Mother-those are the things I cherish from growing up Catholic. The Rosary, the Ave Maria, etc etc…I LIKED those things from being Catholic. I always liked learning about the obscure saints. (Those are some wicked fascinating stories, let me tell you!)
It is the incredibly narrow-minded social agenda of the church that is annoying me. The recent issue of the Pittsburgh Catholic was all about voting for candidates who are pro-life. As someone wrote in a letter to the paper-what about other issues? Yes, the Pro-Life position is important to the church. That’s fine. But what about other, equally important issues? What happens if a candidate is pro-life, but also a racist? So that makes it okay to vote for him?
The church just seems to be (in my area, that is), extremely vocal about things like that, and ignoring other things that are probably a hell of a lot more important.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Boris B *
**
<hijack> I tend to agree with you on the notion of single issue voting. The RCC bishops have actually taken a fairly strong stand against that type of single issue voting. They put out a document called “Faithful Citizenship”…maybe you could forward a copy to the diocesan paper 
http://www.nccbuscc.org/faithfulcitizenship/citizenship.htm
<hijack>
Thanks, Beagle!
Huh. Maybe just a matter of interpretation, then:
so, the RCC is saying that the “proximity” indicates a moral equivalency (which notion they object to). and again, it is the RCC making the claim, not the other parties.
You can specifically object to the fact that PP offers abortions. However, the partnership says NOTHING about the choice being either simple or void of moral content, only that they will not be the arbiters of that choice.
Let’s take the KKK example. A better comparison than the actual story provided would be, what if NAACP hooked up with the KKK to provide a joint service on improving race relations? Pretty controversial, yes. But I would not automatically assume that just because the two were partnering that it’s now OK to lynch blacks. Would you?
Yeah, I guess Jesus was in favor of prostitution, too.
That may be so. My way of thinking was that one doesn’t look for spiritual/moral guidance from secular institutions, especially ones that explicitly state that they don’t wish to make moral pronouncements of any kind.
Apparently, however, the Church is in fact threatened by the same, or at least believes that many people would rather get their moral leadership from secular institutions than the CC.
A Church that tells me that abortion is wrong, and then doesn’t trust me to believe them but instead has to react negatively to any secular thing that “appears” to affect that principle, just in case I get “the wrong message” is not a very trusting Church. Probably the main reason I gave up on them.
P.S. The Church could very easily have come out with a message saying “well, we believe adoption is a compassionate thing to do, and abortion is murder and wrong, and the fact that this partnership exists does not change our beliefs. People shouldn’t even need to go to an abortion clinic, they can come to one of our adoption centers. We expect others to consider this.” That is a clear statement which goes toward avoiding the appearance of neutrality. Instead they chose to attack the partnership and raise accusations of “moral equivalency”.
Well I showed you a real life example of an organization choosing not to affiliate with another organization because of “perception”…
You mention a hypothetical example that I don’t think will ever happen, for the exact reason that I’ve stated…the NAACP does not want to create an “appearance” of in any way endorsing anything the Klan stands for…
Of course if you can show me ANY example where the NAACP has willingly enterted into a working relationship with the Klan, I’d be happy to reconsider this example …otherwise I think you have added another example to my point
dagnabit…I didnt mean to quote the ENTIRE previous post…mea culpa
beagledave, I’m still thinking this over. I really don’t see how your example is the same thing, except nominally in that people’s perceptions of propriety/approval are involved. That’s why I can up with another example that, although clearly fantastic, seems closer in spirit.
Some differences I think are important:
In your case, a partnership was offered and turned down by the party being made the offer. In this case, an existing partnership was condemned by a third party.
In your case, the partnership was for the sole purpose of promoting one of the parties’ belief systems. In this case, the parties are not trying to promote anyone’s belief system.
Your case is a legal issue regarding whether the KKK can insist on having its message broadcast by an unwilling radio station. This case is about me whining that the RCC acted in an “unChristian” manner, with no legal dispute involved.
In your case, it is easy to see how actively promoting someone’s agenda by broadcasting their message might be seen as taking a stand in favor of it. In this case, offering two services which, from the perspective of the criticizer, are at odds, and not telling people to choose one over the other, does not necessarily provide as clear a sense of endorsement.
I could go on. If your point was only that people might have the wrong perception, OK. See previous posts. If you have a larger point, I guess I’m too blockheaded to get it. Can I get a clue?
Yep…my main point is about the “perception” issue…In the KWMU bit, the Klan does not really get a chance to “broadcast” their message per se…they would just be mentioned (presumably, among others) as underwriters. The station “could” have said…well we neither support or dispute what the Klan stands for we take “everybodies” money no matter what…But they were concerned about perception, and the influence of that perception on other relationships the station has…
I do agree that this is an issue where the RCC has to “weigh” the possible benefits of participating with PP in this endeavor versus the possible “message” that they felt they would be sending. I suppose some could say that participating in the Cradle project should outweigh any message concerns the RCC could have. In this particular instance, especially because there are other avenues where the RCC can assist in adoption efforts (like the One Church, One Child project), they made a choice to not give an impression of neutrality on the abortion issue
Just want to make clear: The RCC is not weighing participation, and to my understanding never was. Their comments are directed at two organizations they have no affiliation with whatsoever (The Cradle and PP), so they are basically commenting as outsiders on the “behaviour” of others.
I don’t think the RCC needs to weigh participation, or get involved with PP. (I do think that if they wanna put their money where there mouth is they need to do more than just tell others what to do. And they do that. They sponsor other adoption centers, they work positively in many ways to make a difference in people’s lives. )
I have no problem with that choice (and I don’t see it as a choice. They are obligated by their faith to stand up for what they believe in. Fine.)
But I think they could have chosen a more compassionate and less divisive message. I’m not saying that the RCC should not speak out against abortion, I’m saying I feel that the way they spoke out was wrong and unChristian. I gave an example of a message that might have been less antagonistic above.
Hope that’s all clear now.
Well, that’s certainly understandable. I just thought that there were Protestant faiths which believed in those things as well. On the other hand, I can’t think of which ones exactly… I guess I thought everybody but the Unitarians believed in the Trinity. Immaculate Conception, I don’t know. I think lots of people believe in angels, but maybe not in a detailed way like the Catholics teach.
Guinastasia, you are in a difficult position, and I feel for you. However, RCC doctrine, with one extremely limited “good conscience” exception, emphatically rejects the Protestant belief that people have the right/ability to interpret Scripture and adopt their own religious doctrine. Priests, and ultimately the Pope, are the intercessors between man and God, and only the Church may determine doctrine. I have had many a friend agonize over this, but the fact remains that a “cafeteria Catholic” is not, in the Church’s eyes, a good Catholic.
Sua
Which is probably why I don’t like the church right now…
sigh
Well…sorta. First off, I’m not sure Protestant churches DO think you can invent your own doctrine. For example, a belief in a “real presence” in Communion is not consistent with Methodist belief. Secondly…the Church does not define every scriptural passage that Cathollics must believe, hell not even all Catholic theologians agree on every scripture…take a whack at Revelations for example. I’m not saying that blatant revisionism is encouraged…but not all scripture is doctrinally defined verse by verse. Third, you are probably referring to the Magesterium (sp?) in terms of Papal teaching, not all church teaching is linked to the magesterium (which is the Pope in union with the cardinals). For example, although the Pope has spoken on the role of women in the church, his position on female priests is “not” necessarily an infallible statement (although some feel that it is) …( http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/documents/ctsa1.htm) That being said, the church IS a church of beliefs and teachings…if a person thinks for example that the Apostle’s Creed is bogus, it’s hard to imagine him or her being a part of the RCC.
My own experience has been that there are an enormous number of people out there who identify themselves as Catholic, go to church on a fairly regular basis, etc., and yet strongly disagree with various of the “official” church positions. I know Catholics who believe birth control is OK, who believe that no matter what the Pope says, he’s not infallible, etc… Regardless of what the dogma of a particular religion says qualifies one as a member, many people choose to identify themselves with a religion based on their own private criteria.
I always have a hard time answering people who ask me how friends and relatives of mine can call themselves Catholic when they also believe X. I have resorted to saying “I don’t know, ask them yourself”.
Regardless of the doctrines, it’s not always easy to figure out what the labels mean. If someone is a staunch Catholic in every single respect EXCEPT they take birth control pills, are they really not Catholic?
Very good question…and a tough one (at least for me, perhaps not so for my more orthodox friends) to answer. I didn’t want to get too far into the issue of cafeteria Catholicism (taking the thread even farther off topic than I already did …sorry for that 
)
I think Satan started a thread about this sort of concept, in other words… how much do you have to believe of a groups belief system in order to be considered a member.
I admit I have my own opinions on the subject, but based on what I’ve read, I think there are other folks around who could do a better job of tackling this one…tomndeb come to mind…