I think the Church is as political as its immediate environment allows. You look at the Church in Latin America, or, up until fairly recently, Ireland, and it’s a very different beast than what you’re going to see in Italy or France. The US Church falls somewhere in between on that spectrum, a bit more like the Eurpopean model, IMO, and the recent spate of US Bishop activism strikes me as a bit out-of-character given the trends of the past half-century or so. My guess is it’s because, in the current climate, conservative clerics feel more emboldened, and are getting more attention in the media. In previous decades, more liberal ones held the spotlight. Chances are things will continue to swing back-and-forth, though within a range unlike what you’ll see some other regions of the world. The Vatican has to mange this diversity as best it can, and hence the face it shows us, and the face it shows the Church in other nations, can differ. This leads to some confusion, but I think in general the message is consistent, and only strength of the message varies, depending on how much trouble a measure of public doctrinaire rhetoric will cause the Church in whatever political context it operates. In France, for instance, too much stridency and criticism of govt. figures could lead to the govt. cracking down on religious expression, as it has shown itself quite capable of doing (e.g. headscarves as a symptom of anti-islamist politics).
Mr. Moto slipped in there.
Is the American Church more conservative than the Vatican? I tend to think of the Vatican when i think of the church as a whole–which is shoddy thinking on my part.
Anyway, fair point about the US as compared to Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific. I should’ve said that the US church is more conservative than the church as a whole in industrialized countries.
Daniel
Hmm. It’s perhaps not your analogy that’s goofy, but your understanding of what the Catholic principle is that Kerry would (hypothetically) be applying.
Your fundamental misconception is that the internal rules of the Church are meant to coincide in all cases with the civil law. They’re not, and this is one of the many issues on which they’re not.
See, e.g.,:
http://www.wf-f.org/FastandAbstinence.html
The rules of fast and abstinence are meant to apply to “all Catholics” and “the faithful” and “the entire Church.” If you’re not Catholic, neither John Kerry, nor any hypothetically-rigorous Catholic, will much care what you do on Friday. It’s like asking what if a Shriner became President – he might make everyone wear a fez! No, not unless they join the Shriners and enter the sacred precincts of the Shrine Hall or whatever, at which point they’d have to follow its internal rules.
And the rules of fast and abstinence are based on the notion that self-denial of a good thing can be an even better thing (note that there is flexibility and provision for diocese-by-diocese adaptation). They’re not based on the notion that indulging in meat on Friday is an "intrinsic evil "in itself.
The debate on abortion and politics is based on this premise.
Well, they used to, and surely the Church wouldn’t object if they did again, would it? Would the Church refuse to be involved if the US decided to become a Catholic nation?
And doesn’t the Church believe that it’s best to be a Catholic and to follow all the rules of being a Catholic? Surely, then, it’s in the best interests of everyone, according to the Church, to follow the rules the Church has laid out. Would the Church argue that non-Catholics fasting on Fridays might harm them in some way?
Okay, then let’s substitute something the Church would see as inherently bad. How about adultery? We used to have adultery laws. Should a practicing Catholic try to get new ones passed, or old ones enforced?
Hmm. Essaying a comprehensive history of what the Church thought about the interaction of civil law and religious law is a big task, and I don’t know that I could trace it. And even talking about past “theocratic” eras gets misleading because the forms of “civil government” we know were largely non-existent, so the Church’s dominant role in defining social mores was not necessarily because they had “taken over the government,” but because they filled the vacuum left by absence of any centralized government. Suffice to say that even at the height of the “No Salvation Except Through The Church” viewpoints, and aggressive evangelism/conversion efforts, it’s still easy for me to imagine Catholics saying: Well, if they don’t accept the Church despite our best efforts, screw 'em, I guess they get no Salvation – I don’t care what they do, 'cause they’re damned – as opposed to: hell, we’ll make them say Hail Marys and believe in the Triune Godhead. Any parade of horribles that you may invoke to suggest that there were widespread instances of forcing compliance with purely cultic-practice/“members only” religious laws (the Inquisition might be an example) are so remote from our current political reality that now, I think, your analogy does become too attenuated to teach us much.
As for modern Catholicism, free will plays a dominant role in the conception of who is a Christian. Catholics may not be as radically individualist in the “choose to accept Christ as my personal Savior” language, but I doubt you could identify a single meaningful source of in-force Catholic docrine that suggests non-Catholics should be made Catholics (or should be made to follow Catholic ritual) even if they didn’t believe in the basic principles, or even that “acting Catholic” while not believing in it would necessarily do much good for non-Catholics. As I’ve noted, the refraining from meat has nothing to do with meat being bad, or even with abstention from meat being a good in itself; it has to do with the belief that fasting and abstinence, if approached as a voluntary and prayerful sacrifice, has spiritual benefits, precisely because meat is intrinsically morally neutral and so abstaining from it is sort of supererogatory. If that’s the approach, can’t you see why no Catholic would expect a sullen unwilling non-Catholic who rejects this mindset to get much good out of following the forms but not the spirit of the ritual?
On your adultery question, maybe, maybe not; I don’t know what the “official” Catholic answer would be. But if you read my previously-linked article, you’ll note that the Catholic theory (at least as enunciated by the Newark Archibishop this year) singles out abortion as an almost unique evil (and hence one on which Catholic politicians have very little legitimate room for “personal differences,” per Catholic doctrine), as compared to many other political issues on which Catholics may differ even when the Church has a preference for one side of the debate, specifically noting that the Pope’s grave concerns about the War in Iraq, serious though they were, did not similarly forbid a politician from supporting it.
Agree, disagree. But if the OP suggestion was that the Church’s demand (that politicians identifying themselves as Catholics have little to no right to stray from the Church abortion policy in their political life) poses the slippery slope risk that we’ll all be eating fish on Friday and hosting mandatory bingo games, the “Newark Manifesto” and its narrow focus on abortion as one of the few subjects the Church does deem effectively beyond legitimate political debate for its members, seems to make clear that we needn’t fear the Vatican making similarly “rigid” demands (of its members, keep in mind; the moral suasion and/or sanction can, by necessity, only be enforced on those who choose to remain members) on many issues other than abortion.
To answer the OP: I am Catholic, and in my opinion the law and religion have common interests in protecting the rights of the innocent from egregious harm from another. So, while “Thou shalt not steal” is principally a religious admonition, it also serves perfectly nicely as public policy. Why? Again, because the government has an interest in protecting the rights of an innocent property owner from being violated by another person.
Most activity between consenting adults would NOT fall under this category, to clarify further. So, while I may believe it is against God’s will to divorce your wife or eat meat on certain Fridays, that is solely an act of faith on my part that I don’t feel I can impose on another. Indeed, imposing this, it seems to me, is counter-productive, as are most forms of imposed morality where the prohibited activity harms no one else. I can only prohibit your activity to the extent that it violates the rights of another, otherwise, it’s between you and God.
So, eat meat on Fridays to your heart’s content. Gay marriages? That’s up to you and your partner, as far as I’m concerned. Want to commit adultery? I won’t stop you, though I might consider it despicable behavior. Don’t want to go to mass on Sunday? Your choice, not mine.
But, for the reasons noted, abortions are right out.
By the way, that’s why I agree with your mom re: Kerry’s quasi-Catholicism. If he says, “I take it as an act of faith that I should go to mass on Sundays to please God, I fully believe the Church’s teachings on this–but how can I impose that on another person who believes differently?,” then I’m with him.
Replace the subject with abortion, and it become nonsense. You can’t fully believe the RCC’s teachings on abortion and think that this is a personal choice that affects only the mother. That’s not what the church teaches. Say you disagree with the church on this, and your position will at least be coherent. IMO, you can’t believe what the church teaches on abortion and believe it should be up to the individual any more than you could believe the church’s teachings on murdering adults and believe that should also be a choice. If you believe murder should be permitted, you don’t believe what the church teaches (or else you don’t believe in restricting people’s actions at all).
You can’t fully believe, but you can come close.
THat is, you can believe abortion is an immoral choice, you can believe that a fetus is a being that deserves moral protection–but you can also believe that the case for these beliefs is rooted in religious, not secular, reasons.
The Church disagrees: the Church believes the case against abortion can be made on entirely secular grounds. To disagree on the grounds on which the case against abortion can be made, however, is a minor yet crucial disagreement.
I believe this is where Kerry disagrees with the Church.
Daniel
There are three things there are not: there are no ex-Jews. no ex-Catholics, and no ex-Texans. All three stain right down to the bone.
I know a number of Catholics: lapsed Catholics, relapsed Catholics, collapsed Catholics…but they’re all still Catholic, even if they haven’t Hailed a Mary in thirty years. They love their Church, but they don’t obey their Church, just like you reach an age when you love your Mom, but at a gentle remove.
Liberation Theology didn’t grind to a halt just because a conservative was elected Pope, the Berrigan brothers and Dorothy Day are just as Catholic as the Pope. Maybe more so. If John XXIII were the priest of my local church, I would attend services if only to be in the presence of authentic goodness, which is all the church I need.
A Good Catholic isn’t someone who slavishly follows the rules and arcane theology of an exhausted institution. A Good Catholic is a good person who happens to be Catholic. The Church can issue its bull, and state its demands, and Good Catholics will follow thier conscience, as they have been doing for a very, very long time.
Actually, I’m a lapsed Catholic, and as far as I’m concerned, they can all go hang. I must confess, I never really bought into the whole package (I was about as skeptical an adolescent as I am an adult), but I went to all the classes, as ordered. Aside from attending some nice midnight Masses in French (they do that in Maine, and the service is often much more enjoyable when you can’t understand the sermon), I don’t miss it in the slightest. This idea that Catholicism leaves some indelible mark is a bunch of baloney.
FWIW, I tend to think, actually, that a “good” Catholic is one who plays by the Pope’s rules, which has a lot to do with why I’m not in the Church any longer. The way I see it, at least I had the integrity to publically admit I thought the whole thing was a crock, and not try to cling vainly to an identity which I could hardly claim to genuinely espouse. Kerry struck me as a total hypocrite, wearing his faith on his sleeve while displaying scant doctrinal fealty to it. The Republicans sure weren’t buying his have-it-both-ways approach to being Bush Light, and it still astonishes me that the Democrats thought that approach was a good idea.
I don’t think that matters, LHoD since Kerry claimed during the campaign that his faith informs the decisions he makes. And these decisions don’t affect the Church directly, they affect American society as a whole through his position as a senior United States Senator.
From the October 13th debate:
Now, if you believe abortion to be intrinsically wrong and coarsening to society as a whole, then you’ll have an obligation to at least take steps to minimize them. Even this small step, though, was too much for Kerry to take. He never questioned the culture of abortion-on-demand at all.
His actions were unquestionably counter to Church teachings.
Democrats used to own the Catholic vote, and they counted amongst their number many pro-life voters and politicians. The party is losing these folks, though, and this is hurting them in elections. The message from the Democratic Party these days is that, at least on this issue, you have to check your morality at the door.
I think that’s tragic, myself.
Inspiring stuff.
What I wonder is . . . whence the urge to associate oneself with an institution whose fathers are so clearly outre and whose institutions decrepit? Why not just call oneself a “good person,” rather than a “good Catholic,” assuming that the institutions and their theology are exhausted, then join another church, or start one?
Invariably, for me, it comes down to wanting to have it both ways. Wanting to have the tradition/seniority (and cashflow potential) of a 2000 year old church (and hey, the authority that confers on anyone who proclaims himself as the next Messaiah), and to have it be transferable at will.
Lovely verbiage though.
Well, I’m a bit shagged out after a long squawk, and pining for the fjords.
But the case is both secular and religious, that’s my point. The church teachings present quite a compelling secular case, should you accept it (as Kerry says he does)–that the unborn are human beings, deserving of the right to live. It is a secular notion, one that some atheists have accepted. It is incoherent to say you accept this teaching, but wouldn’t want to make it public policy.
Reject the teaching, or at least describe it as less-than-conclusive. Then I disagree with you, but at least you have a consistent posture. Kerry (and others) are effectively saying, “I fully accept the church’s teachings that abortion kills a human being, but don’t see any reason why this should result in a prohibition.” It is a naked attempt to appear in allegiance with two orthodoxies, a political party’s and a church’s. It is nonsense. Be stand-up. Reject the church’s teaching, not just in actions but in words. Don’t try to have it both ways.
There is nothing arcane or obscure about the church’s teachings on abortion. And we are taught that faithful devotion to the church’s teachings is the hallmark of a good Catholic. Thanks for the offensive comment about my “exhausted institution,” BTW. Couldn’t resist, eh?
No. There are plenty of good people who are not good Catholics (though I would argue that all good people behave in accordance with certain core Catholic beliefs, whether that’s their objective or not). But those who reject the church’s teachings are not good Catholics. That’s their prerogative, of course, but it’s an inarguable definition.
And if their conscience leads them substantially away from the church’s teachings, they may well remain fine people, but they will not be Catholics.
elucidator seems to believe that on this subject, the Catholic Church as a whole is heterodox. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has been vigorously suppressing pro-life within its ranks, to achieve a pro-choice orthodoxy.
I think an orthodox political party and a heterodox religious faith are exactly backwards from what should be the case.
elucidator, you said there are good people who happen to be Catholic. Conversely, there are lots of good people who happen to be Democrats, and these include many pro-lifers. Aren’t these folks being pressured by their political party’s insistence that they toe the pro-choice line? Do you think that’s right and proper?
One of the reasons the “pro-life” arguments are so well recieved is we have forgotten what things were like before, we don’t have to face the consequences, we don’t see them.
When I was younger and more foolish, I had a dear friend who became pregnant through ignorance and feverish romantic delusion. In a panic, she arranged for an illegal, clandestine abortion. Had she been rich, of course, she could have simply whisked herself away to another country. She wasn’t. The resulting infection very nearly killed her. It did, however, render her sterile. She became a well-respected pediatrician, but she lost a fundamental joy of life. Needlessly.
If the advocates of “pro-life” have their way, her story will be repeated. Abortions will happen, the only real question is under what circumstances. If abortion is illegal, young women of privilege will suffer inconvenience. Young women without such means will die. Its that simple. Anyone who thinks this reflects the will of Jesus, avatar of mercy and compassion, went to a different Sunday School than I did.
Personally, I find abortion repugnant. It is also somewhat unfair that a prospective father has no power of decision. Tough noogies. Its not my body, its not my choice, nor is it his. If we trust women to raise children, we trust them to decide not to. They may make the wrong choice, but it is theirs to make. Not mine. Not yours.
But if the “pro-life” forces are permitted to enforce thier theology as law, young women will die. If it comes to pass, and you read the news about some terrifed young women bleeding to death in a taxicab, remember…this is your work, this you did in the Name, with pious certainty. Jesus wept.
Sure, elucidator. Nobody said this was an easy political decision on either side. If you think for a second I’m ignoring the consequences of an America where abortion was outlawed, you’re sadly mistaken.
My grandmother was a labor and delivery nurse for decades, eventually becoming assistant head nurse of that department at her hospital. She witnessed thousands of births to women and couples in every imaginable situation. What she saw convinced her to become and remain pro-choice, while remaining a staunch Republican and a devout Baptist. I disagree with her on this issue, but I respect her views as honestly held and acquired through much examination of the subject. I have no doubt that your views on the issue are informed the same way.
You seem to be minimizing, though, the more than 1.5 million abortions happening annually. Is it a good thing that this is happening? Can it lead to less reverance for human life? The culture has now started to entertain debate on euthanasia and experimentation on human embryos. These subjects would have been roundly dismissed as clearly immoral and illegal not very long ago.
Now, you can say abortion is immoral and repugnant to you. What are you doing to stop them, even if you think they shouldn’t be banned?
John Kerry wasn’t able to answer this question, and doing so might have prevented the Church from denouncing him to the extent that they did.
In either instance, the mother would not be the only one dying. The mother is certainly no less important that the unborn child, and no one wants desperate women dying in the circumstances you describe. But your poignant examples conveniently ignore the fact that we uncompassionate pro-lifers also believe that in EVERY abortion a human being dies, whether the mother is poor or rich. Anyone who thinks permitting this reflects the will of Jesus, avatar of mercy and compassion, went to a different Sunday School than I did.
If the “pro-choice” forces are permitted to enforce their theology as law, young children will die. When this comes to pass, and you read the news about some terrifed young woman pursuing a societally condoned option that results in the death of an innocent child, remember…this is your work, this you did in the Name of whatever you believe in, with pious certainty. Jesus wept indeed.