There’s a lot of stuff in there. What I want to know is, is the RCC in America supposed to judge politicians on the whole thing, or just on the bits and pieces having to do with abortion, gays, and stuff?
Because there’s stuff like this:
What does Pope Ratzi himself say? That this stuff doesn’t count in judging politicians, or that it’s secondary to abortion and homosexuality? Or is it all equally in play? When American RCC clerics tell their parishioners to shun Kerry on account of his abortion stances, but don’t say anything about the GOP’s warmongering and rich-grab-everything approach to wealth distribution, are they ignoring Ratzi, or following his teachings? And if the former, then what has RAtzi done about it?
Does the RCC still actually mean stuff like this when they say it, or don’t they? There was a time, back under Paul VI (aside from Humanae Vitae, which was the lens most Americans viewed him through, he was a pretty good Pope), when they unquestionably did. It seemed to still be there, but did a gradual fade in significance, during most of J.P. II’s reign. But towards the end, when Ratzi was already practically the acting Pope, it seemed to pretty much disappear, except for the occasional lip service.
It’s kinda like fundies and the Bible. The Bible says lots of things that, if the fundies actually paid attention to them and didn’t do their “what the Bible really means here is…” number, would force them to re-examine everything they believe about their approach to the world. But most of them just kinda shut those parts off, and stick with the parts that say homos, fornicators, etc. are evil. If Pope Ratzi is producing a document that says a whole lot of stuff, some of which would warm the heart of a lefty like me, but only certain parts are really supposed to count, that’s what I would have a problem with.
The US Council of Catholic Bishops is, understandably, reluctant to criticize individual bishops or to comment on the choices they make in overseeing their diocese.
Posting things on the USCCB web site isn’t exactly “getting the word out” with the same force and in the same outlets as carried the words of those condmning Ketty.
And commenting on the fitness of a politician running for President isn’t exactly “overseeing their diocese.” At least it isn’t to me.
This doesn’t make me feel a whole lot better. They’re just arguing about how the best ways of punishing politicians who go against church teaching, or perhaps just coercing them to follow teachings. In a secular society a politicians duties are to his or her constituents, to the Constitution, and to his personal moral code, not necessarily in that order. If any of these go against church teachings, the politician should ignore the teachings or resign, since we don’t force anyone to run for office.
I don’t see what how this bears on the topic. Who gives a damn whether or not John Kerry receives communion, other than John Kerry? And was Kerry in all of the diocese whose Bishops castigated him? Does a Bishop publicly announce that any individual shouldn’t receive communion, or only those running for President?
If they specifically endorse a particular candidate or if they explicitly endorse a particular referendum vote it certainly can.
This is one reason why you will generally not see anything resembling such statements (and even the statements of the more outspoken bishops, if read closely, will leave enough room to keep the Election Commission off their backs).
But they did not just post things on their web site. They issued the same sort of public news releases as everyone else including the most conservative bishops. However, the individual news editors chose to run the two-line sound bites of the more hostile crowd rather than the longer, nuanced comments of the majority. (For that matter, the reports from the bishops hostile to kerry were not, generally, released to the media in the same way that the statements of the USCCB were. More often, the individual bishops’ statements were published in pastoral letters which were then sent to newsrooms by irate Catholics who disagreed. Those stories were then run and the responses from the USCCB or other individual bishops were either not run or truncated.)
As I noted, folks with measured positions are rarely as anxious to run out and yell at the media. As Captain Amazing noted, the group is also reluctant to publicize anything resembling an internal division.
(And, frankly, I doubt that more than a handful of people in the U.S. were following the speciic instructions of the bishops, in any event.)
Yes, but the USCCB website was the only thing cited.
And what you wrote explains why you put the gist of your message in the first couple of sentences when writing a press release (or in being interviewed by Chris Matthews ). You also state it in plain, strong and unambiguous language. Did they skip the part about topic sentences in grade school?
And, it seems to me that the USCCB should have been among the most irate of those “irate Catholics.”
I tend to agree. What worries me about this issue is not that Church authorities are advocating a particular moral/ethical stance, which I think they have every right to do, but that they’re deliberately putting pressure on Catholic politicians about how they should act in their secular capacity as government representatives of constituents who include non-Catholics as well as Catholics.
If these were, say, Shi’ite mullahs in Iraq demanding that members of the Iraqi parliament make the secular laws conform to the mullahs’ idea of proper Qur’anic ethics, would we think it was okay? I’m fine with religious leaders advocating the moral principles of their religion and encouraging all their adherents to follow those principles. I’m not so comfortable with religious leaders deliberately targeting politicians in the exercise of their secular functions and threatening them with religious penalties if they don’t strive to impose their religious principles by force of law upon all citizens of whatever religious persuasion.
ISTM that secular laws that apply to the entire population should be backed up by secular principles. “My God said so” is not an adequate justification for imposing your God’s dogma on people who don’t happen to believe in your God, or don’t agree with your interpretation of what your God said. That’s not religious freedom, that’s theocracy.
i wouldn’t even see anything wrong with the hierarchy telling a candidate that it was his duty to try to enact into law Catholic doctrine if it entered into the legislation. Provided, that is, that the candidate then ran on a platform that included a full and repeated disclosure of his intention.
We do have a current Muslim member of Coungress. How about church officials telling him that he had to try to enact laws putting their doctrine into effect?
I see it differently. The RCC has every right and duty to provide guidance as to what is expected of a practicing Catholic. Abortion positions are the most obvious example.
The candidate, OTOH, has every right to say, “Sorry, I don’t buy that aspect of your teachings. Call me a cafeteria Catholic, or whatever, but that’s what I believe.” Or, “Okay, then, I guess I’m no longer a Catholic. Which religion wants to bid for my services?” Or any of a number of general variations on these two positions. Anything but the tired, old, hypocritical, “I fully believe the teachings of my church on this matter, but I believe this is a personal matter, one for every individual to decide for him- or herself, just as I did.”
Bullshit. You can NOT fully believe the RCC’s teachings on abortion, IMO, and hold that this is a matter of personal faith, one where any position is acceptable as a matter of conscience. Politicians who say so, again IMO, are gutless panderers, attempting to have the best of both worlds, demonstrating their piety by virtue of their adherence to the faith as good Catholic / Christians, while also showing their colors to the party faithful with regard to this plank in the platform.
I have no problem with the RCC calling bullshit on this hypocrisy, just as I respect (even if I disagree) with a candidate who would respond with some version of, “Then I guess I don’t fully believe your teachings after all,” or “Okay, then I don’t want to be in your club at all.” To me, what the church is saying is, “If you’re Catholic, this is what you should believe, by definition.” They are not asserting that the politician MUST be Catholic, and MUST follow Catholic teachings–at least when it’s communicated properly, anyway. (I’m sure there are those on the fringes who have expressed a stronger position, but they’re wrong and should have checked with me first to be sure. )
Might be a subtle distinction, but they’re in no position to make demands. However you’d characterize this position, if they are asserting what their church actually expects of its faithful, then I have no problem with it. The candidate can likewise tell them, nah, I’d rather not, thank you.
I happen to agree with you. That’s the difference, for me, between outlawing abortion and making it mandatory that people go to church on Sunday. The first, for me, has a secular argument to support it. The second does not (or if it does, it’s exceedingly weak and remote). I’m Catholic, and that’s the issue I take with the RCC’s position on SSM, for example. We can believe whatever we’d like–gotta love the first amendment–but I don’t think beliefs that do not protect the rights of “non-consenting” individuals have any place in law. They are purely matters of personal conscience.
You don’t accept SSM? Fine, don’t marry someone of the same sex. Not so with abortion, which does protect the rights of someone else party to the decision to abort, someone with a very particular future interest in the outcome. Not trying to turn this into an abortion debate, just trying to illustrate where I see the boundary between the secular and religious, which seems relevant to the thread. That’s the difference, the point where I find my own church’s political influence as intrusive and overbearing, even if I accept its right to set that expectation for its membership.
Except for the part where calling it bullshit is being a cafeteria Catholic, because the importance of each individual’s moral judgment is part of the catechism. You’re not supposed to just go “well, it’s inconvenient for me not to use birth control, so I’m gonna”, but if you come to the honest informed conclusion that something is immoral for you to do, the Church doesn’t demand that you do it anyway because she says so. It’s the way conservative Catholics want to pretend that in order to be a Real Catholic you have to agree with everything the Pope says that is driving people like me out. Once again, the list of things you have to do and believe to be a Catholic is short, and none of them involve how you vote.
That isn’t true for certain dogmatic teachings, where there is really no room for interpretation. Or do I misunderstand you? Using abortion again as the obvious example, I am aware of no latitude in the church’s teachings that would permit someone to obtain an abortion (where the primary, not indirect, objective is to eliminate the unborn child). Period. I am not an expert, for sure, but that’s my understanding. I don’t see any way to believe the church’s teachings and simultaneously support abortion rights, in the same way that I don’t see any way to believe the church’s teachings regarding killing those already born and supporting someone’s right to kill her toddler (not that anyone’s advocating that). For some matters, it really does seem that simple (granted, not for everything).
To be honest with you, I don’t see how it can be reconciled either. I think I said above somewhere that I believe the Church will one day welcome faithful gay couples, but will never change on abortion, because it’s too central.
However, I think individual Catholics are always charged with an ultimately personal responsibility over every moral decision. You’re not just supposed to follow dogma blindly, and to do so would be a sin. You’re supposed to understand why it is that way, and while it’s not to be taken as lightly as many, many Catholics obviously do take it, if you try your best to agree with the teachings and still don’t, you’re absolutely not supposed to just pretend you do. The Church doesn’t expect you to brainwash yourself or lie to follow dogma. It does expect you to try really really really hard to do so of your own free will, though, not just by will alone but by study and council and prayer and so on.
Honestly I think a lot of the modern Catholics who simply disregard Church teaching just don’t understand them very well, and might be more devout if they had anything other than a rudimentary grasp of their own faith. To me that is the great sin the Church should be confronting to get to the root of the rest, but whatever, it’s not my problem anymore.
Correct. But as far as I know, there have been no dogmatic pronouncements on abortion and homosexual marriage, so Catholics can approve of both if their own search for truth led them to that conclusion.
But the weasel words on the “individual’s conscience” teaching is the phrase “an informed conscience”, which is meant by the Church, specifically, “informed by the Church’s teachings”. In practice, the interpretation of this phrase can go either way.
That’s not how I understood it. IANAT (theologian), but from what I gathered through 14 years of studying in Catholic institutions, while it’s preferable to get your instruction from the Church’s teaching, it’s not necessary. For so long as they are not taught as dogma, you can reject ANY of the Church’s teaching - with the same caveat : your rejection of the teaching is a result of your own search for truth and your conscience and all that jazz.
A practicing Catholic as an individual, yes. A practicing Catholic as a representative of all the people, no, or at least not if the Church wants to operate in a pluralistic society. If the Church believes that their moral doctrines should be enacted, what is their defense if a Moslem representative wants to ban the use of alcohol everywhere, including during Communion?
I agree with you somewhat on what the politician should do, but I also think the church should back off. Actually Kerry’s position on abortion - I’m personally against it, but I’m not going to impose my religious beliefs on others - is exactly right.
Well, but the position of the Catholic church is that abortion is the evil murder of innocent unborn babies (“EMIUB”). If you really believe that EMIUB is going on, isn’t stopping it one of those moral obligations you have?
). You also state it in plain, strong and unambiguous language. Did they skip the part about topic sentences in grade school?
)