After the Vatican’s recent pronouncement concerning Catholic politicians voting habits, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch printed an editorial today closing with this quote:
Wait a minute, wait a minute, stop the music!! Is this editorial actually suggesting that it’s the Catholic morality that’s confused and inconsistent?? If anything, I’d say it’s the major American political parties that have no consistent moral philosophy whatsoever, it’s the major American political parties who are playing Twister with their ethics in an effort to continue to pander to various interest groups whose goals and ethics don’t always synchronize.
This isn’t an indicator that the Vatican’s stance is confused, it’s an indicator that Democrats and Republicans have no core of principles tying together their positions. Being against both abortion and the death penalty seems pretty consistent to me, regardless of whether one agrees with it. The GOP and Dems stance seems like a lot of evasion and hedging the issue when you confront them on it. (And BTW, when’s the last time you actually heard a major Democratic politician come out as being universally opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances?)
Should politicians vote their party platform, or their ethics? One’s ethics at least have a decent chance to be internally consistent, and make a modicum of sense. One’s party platform may be politically expedient, but don’t politicians destroy their own intellectual credibility by bending their social philosophy to cater to competing interest groups? I have alot more respect for the person who believes the death penalty, abortion, and poverty are immoral and actually votes consistent with that belief (within the confines of the Constitution and appropriate exercise of Congressional power), than I have for someone who sets aside what he thinks is right so that he can pad his vote totals.
Not having read the editorial in its entirety (linkety-link, please), I’d say that, based on what you posted, the Post-Dispatch is saying that the RCC and the American political system have different moral imperatives that do not correspond exactly.
And were a politician to try to reconcile the two, they’d have to play moral Twister.
So unbunch the boxers; this ain’t an anti-Catholic jibe.
This isn’t news (about the US parties). They’ve always been inconsistent. I’ve always wondered about those voting a straight ticket for any party. They must be single issue voters, hoping to stack the deck in favor of that one issue.
I find myself voting for non-incumbants lately. Both parties want to crush the little man in their own way (whether through a Democratic lack of economic freedom or a Republican lack of personal freedom). The best we can do is rotate them in and out of office, and mix control of the House, Senate and the Presidency.
…Unless one wants to consider a third party option. The Libertarians are pretty consistent with their “non-aggression” philosophy, but even they get confused in their platform regarding the abortion issue (so much for non-aggression against the innocent), although their last candidate was pro-life himself.
You talk about the Catholic Church as if they’re a worthwhile group who have a useful contribution to make. But I see the Catholic hierarchies’ response on the matter of child-raping preists to be so heinous that they have lost all credibility, all respectability.
You got a lot of damn gall accusing me of bad form for pointing out what scum they are.
Well I think you’ve BOTH got a lot of gall. Yeah, the church and it’s monarchy have turned a blind eye, nay, even silently endorsed, a great many heinous things over the years, and I personally consider the leaders of the church at total fault, but as goes the axiom, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Despite the lack of concern for anything other than canon law, the Catholics have done more than their fair share of good for the downtrodden, not that doing so gives the leaders absolution, but it does remove, at least one time, the faithful masses from the harsh light of criticism.
JPB, despite EC’s somewhat inflammatory tone, he’s not wrong.
Sua, I’m with ya, I don’t think it was anti-catlick either. (chicago accent).
Can we liken the actions of an orginization to that of its members?
I mean, we all know that there are many corrupt members of the U.S. government. Does that make it, and us, inherently corrupt?
Ligouri:
If the current leadership of the U.S. government is corrupt, chances are it will behave as a corrupt organization. The positions they advocate will be part and parcel of that corruption and should be examined with extreme care.
Firewitch:
Just because the Catholics set up orphanages and such to take care of all the starving babies created by its anti-birth control and anti-abortion position doesn’t make them good. Especially since it’s reckless and irresponsible position on these issues creates problems which far outpace its ability to deal with them.
If the U.S. government advocated selling huge amounts of cheap land mines to third world countries, but then offers prosthetics on the cheap to all the people of those countries who get limbs blown off by them, does that make the government all saintly and nice?
Oh, Mother of God…don’t have much of an axe to grind, do you? So every Catholic hospital, every Catholic soup kitchen, every Catholic program for the poor, they are all hypocritical nonsense because the Catholic church created all these problems (like lung cancer, just as an example) in the first place. Every child in a Catholic orphanage is there because the birth parents didn’t use contraception because of RCC teachings, eh?
You can’t concede the simplest and most obvious of points–i.e., the Catholic church does good acts. You have no credibility at the moment, which I point out since credibility seems to be such an issue for you.:rolleyes:
This is bad form because it was an inflammatory remark with no relevent proof to back it up. Firewitch got it right when she said you may be able to cite instances where the RC Church turned a blind eye to this type of behaviour, but you sure won’t find any official decree endorsing altar-boy molestation. I would of course welcome any cites you can provide that would prove me wrong.
And you have a lot of damn gall for posting inflammatory remarks without any cites.
I’d just like to take a moment to thank Evil Captor for calling me scum. I really appreciate it. And thanks for calling my wonderful grandmother scum as well, the one who worked hard for 50 years, raised 5 children successfully, and donates time and money to various charities.
And how about the nun who ran the cafeteria at my high school? You know, the evil scum hell-beast who would give you some food for lunch if you hadn’t any money that day?
Thank you for calling the founders of the two hospitals closest to my house scum as well. It’s nice to know that the places that’ve taken care of (and saved the lives of, in some occasions) my whole family are utterly terrible and depraved.
And no, it doesn’t sound like he was just referring to the hierarchy of the Church, since he referred to “the Catholics” and their actions. That’s individuals, not just the bureaucracy.
No, they’re all good works. It’s just that when you advance policies that are many times more destructive than the good works are constructive (i.e., Catholic opposition to birth control and abortion, especially in Third World countries) a reasonable person can and should figure out that you’re full of shit. It’s like the Mafia supporting an orphanage. Yeah, that’s a good work, but some of those orphans are there because the Mafiosa put them there.
OK, that’s not really fair – to the Mafia. It’s conceivable that if a Mafia family supports an orphanage, its members might not kill enough people with children to make up that many orphans. Whereas Catholic opposition to birth control undoubtedly creates more unwanted kids, or kids who are wanted but whose parents can’t support them, by orders of magnitude.
**You can’t concede the simplest and most obvious of points–i.e., the Catholic church does good acts. **
I never denied it, I just said that their good works are more than offset by the evil done by their policies.
Piffle. The Catholic Church hierarchy in Britain, in Ireland, in the U.S. and probably everywhere in the world made a practice of covering up the molestation of children by its preists, and in many if not most cases put those preists in positions of authority over children again and again. There may not be any smoking gun in the form of a written decree, but when an organization responds that consistently it’s reasonable to assume that the response is official policy, even if unwritten.
Hey, if I want to specifically call you scum, I will say something along the lines of “Zweisamkeit is scum.” Same with granny and the kids and everybody else you mentioned. I was referring to the Catholic Church as a whole, not individuals, as the context of my post makes very clear. Get a grip.
EvilCaptor, your hangup about “birth control” policies seems to be a bit of a chip on your shoulder, I dont’ think you’re necessarily seeing this in the most rational light.
IMHO, the amount of good the Catholic Church has done in this world over the last 1600 years is more than enough to outweigh any supposedly negative consequences.
I’m afraid that’s not good enough here in Great Debates. Part of the reason why there is so much ignorance in this world is because of assumptions. This is why I called bad form on you in the first place. If you had said something along the lines of “Is the Catholic Church still maintaining its turning-a-blind-eye-to-child-molestation position?”, I wouldn’t have called you on it.
