The usual example (for those interested) cited for these kinds of things is uterine cancer. The church says that there is a “double effect” in treating the cancer.
The primary purpose/effect of a procedure is to treat that cancer that may end up killing the mother. The treatment may have an “indirect” effect of causing the death of the fetus.
So the Church has to make a difficult choice and does so. It probably should be mentioned that those who choose abortion are often also faced with a hard choice and could use some support and not condemnation.
This is really outside the theme of the thread and I’m sort of being a provocateur so I’ll let this be my last along this line.
Yes. The target of my shot was the poster, not the educational system.
While many Protestant churches are legally incorporated church by church and fit nicely into the modern assumed legal scheme of things, this is not the case for the RCC.
The RCC starts from a theoretical view of “the Church” as an invisible universal moral community, unentangled by mere temporal legal constructs. This view has occasionally smacked up against the pesky pedantic and legalistic details of property laws (think the seizure of the monasteries in England).
RCC property in the US has been held in the name of laypersons, individual bishops and/or chartered entities where possible, but typically on a diocesan or archdiocesan (bishop-wide area) basis, not parish church by parish church.
Partly because of the lack of traditional, chartered and separately formed entities for many RCC organizations/societies, the IRS has adopted a simplified pragmatic method for granting/acknowledging 501(c)(3) status for RCC-related groups: if you can get your organization’s name listed in the Official Catholic Directory (maintained by someone within the RCC), you automatically have (c)(3) status without IRS application.
This needless legalistic post has been brought to you by the unincorporated but nonetheless really and truly existant community of professional tax-exemption pedants.
Yeah, when I posted that I wanted to put an additional parenthetical in there to cover the diocesan base, but I hate parentheticals within parentheticals. Additionally, it appears I still would have been wrong! Thanks for the info.
Well, you are required each year to receive communion at least once during the Easter season. This is the bare minimum for a believing Catholic, although most Catholics receive communion much more frequently (and the Church encourages them to do so). If you go more than a year without receiving communion, that’s bad, but it’s not considered nearly as grievous a sin as receiving communion in a state of mortal sin.
I’m not even sure if abstaining from communion is considered a mortal sin, but receiving communion in a state of mortal sin is in itself a mortal sin–you’d just be piling another mortal sin atop of the other one(s).
No, thank you. There are distressingly few posts which invite consideration of the really practical applications of the Tax Code to medieval unincorporate institutions.
Actually, the RCC has no direct official proclamation on the topic that I have ever found. (Each of my PhD and DD Franciscan uncles indicated that they knew of no such pronouncement, either.)
There is a general approach that is discussed in theological circles in which a mother is presumed to have had a life in which to grow in the faith and become a complete person and that the unborn infant is deserving of the same opportunity. This was expressed in the work of fiction, (the novel and later movie The Cardinal) as some sort of “rule” of the church. However, there is no such rule and, while “mother or child?” is rarely a valid decision in the real world (aside from a few examples such as the aggressive treatment of cancer mentioned by beagledave), the church does not have a single one-size-fits-all answer, aside from opposing any abortion that is the primary treatment for a condition on the grounds that it is the taking of human life.
It’s also notable that any layman can BRING such a charge, which is all that has happened. If I sued George Bush for murdering my mother, could I assume that you’d complain if the New York Times didn’t make it front page news? Given that this guy hasn’t made a similar charge against any pro-choice Republicans, or even any other pro-choice Democrats, how can anyone even take the CHARGE seriously, much less the fact that it’s something anyone can bring at any time whether it has any merit or not.
Munch:
I don’t buy that. The CC has enourmous power and influence, and nobody believes the CC has power and influence more than the CC. The think they can decide whether you can go the Heaven or Hell (don’t they?). They wouldn’t threaten to deny you communion, excommunicate you, or charge you with heresy if they didn’t think that was a threat. (If not a single CC official so much as said boo to John Kerry then I’m totally schmucked, but it’s not like I hadn’t heard about this already.)
Believe it or not, many religious people make a big deal about their religion. For Catholics, that means making a big deal about what the hierachical organzation to which they belong “teaches” them to do and what their leaders tell them to do. And for Catholic leaders, it means making a big deal about whether or not their subordinates do what they tell them to do.
My position (call it pre-emptive) is that the relationship between voter and elected official is so important (America, patriotism, flag, blah-blah-blah) that the uniquely pervasive influence of the CC needs to specifically warned off. They tell you they’ve got your soul where they’d just as soon have your nuts because they believe that and want you to believe that too. And as voters, how can we compete with that?
I do, and I thank you and Polycarp for the explanations.
That said, I have another question, if you care to continue to fight my ignorance. Basically, it comes down to where the line should be drawn, in a way.
An example would be the oft-stated “fact” that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
In my mind, it’s not. Duly passed by Congress, signed by the President, it’s the law (and presumably Constitutional) until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, or the Constitution is amended.
Now, a thread with you, Dewey, minty, et al, arguing whether or not it should be constitutional, I understand.
But way too often, partisans on both sides just make claims that the PA (or whatever) is, or is not, constitutional based on their own feelings on the matter, not in any basis of law. There are plenty of other examples, see claims of violations of the First Amendment in re the Baseball Hall of Fame and Susan Saradon/Tim Robbins, of all things.
No offense to DTC, but I felt that his posts were displaying the latter behavior.
If I’m wrong on this, let me know.
Regards,
milroyj
The RCC cannot decide who will or will not get to heaven (or hell) and does not claim to have that power. (Which is not to say that no official in the RCC has ever made the claim that he could–but the church is pretty clear that such decisions are limited to God.)
Your second statement would have more weight if the RCC was, indeed, acting as the great monolithic juggernaut that some people believe that it is. Indeed, the National Council of Catholic Bishops explicitly declined to make a single, unified statement on this particular issue and has never (in my memory) made monolithic declarations of the sort you fear. Even when condemning things that “everyone” considers bad, (specific racist actions or acts of aggression, for example), the bishops tend to use language that expresses the principles that would cause one to condemn the actions, but generally avoid pointing to an individual and declaring “You have sinned.”
(Note the differences in the individual pronouncements from bishops Sheridan and Pilla mentioned, above.)
You really need to look up some figures on Catholic adherence to the RCC pronouncements on birth control.
No argument here – this does happen quite frequently, and your point about the Patriot Act is particularly true for this board; I can’t count the number of threads in which hysterical claims about the Patriot Act have been made, and not backed up with anything of substance. Like you, I find that sort of unsubstantiated uber-confidence extremely annoying… at the very least, qualify your utterly baseless ranting with “In my opinion,” whydoncha?
In this instance… yeah, I think you were a bit off base. Diogenes’s statement were of the uber-confidence variety, yes, but on an opinion that legitimately lent itself to uber-confidence; heresy is strictly defined, and nobody has made any specific allegations that Kerry’s words or actions have manifested it.
I’m not often on the same side of an issue as Diogenes, heaven knows. But on this point, I think he was on relatively firm ground.
From the campaign trail, I can tell you that getting the Catholic church to play hardball with John Kerry is a very big and very deliberate and very desperate strategy of major import to this campaign. It may well backfire, as American Catholics are notoriously independant-minded and don’t hold with the church on many politicized issues and certainly would be pretty pissed at seeing their church take a single issue out on which to take sides, especially given the ill-will all the sex-abuse scandals have created among the laity and heirarchy.
But for the Republicans in certain key states, trying to get the Chruch to bat for their side is one of the only things that would really turn the election their way, and you’d better believe that they are doing their best to try and make it happen. Heck, two local priests got into a shoving match over the issue not long ago out here in {location undisclosed}.
The Catholic Church doesn’t seem to do what is best for non-followers either. You know, the millions who were tortured and slaughtered throughout history? 
And the fact that they could commit all those past acts and then go and be against something like abortion (thus denying them control over yet another soul) is laughable.
Desperate? Sure. But strategy of major import? I’m not convinced. This comes across as the action of a single, uh, maverick to me, not the actions of a coordinated campaign.
There may be other efforts in the future to go for Catholic hardball, and I’ll judge those as they arise; but this seems no more significant than W Ketchup.
Daniel
Thanks! Sorry to hijack.
Although this is a hijack of the main thread topic, I think you make points that deserve answering. Yes, there is for any statute a “presumption of constitutionality” – in short, the judges say that “We’re going to start by assuming that Congress does not have its collective head up its rectum, and passed a law that is probably constitutional – the burden of proof is on the party alleging that that statute is unconstitutional, to prove that it in fact is.” However, for some unfathomable reason, Messrs. Clinton and Bush have not seen fit to nominate any of the brilliant Dopers with insight into constitutional law to the Supreme Court, so any discussion here is going to simply be a determination of whether there are such grounds to consider laws like the Patriot Act, DOMA, etc., as violating a given Constitutional stricture. And as you may have noticed, we have a fairly good sized pool of talent in doing that sort of Constitutional-law analysis here.
So yeah, any law is presumed constitutional until challenged. The purpose of those discussions is a non-binding message board challenge of that presumption.
As for the opinion-not-factual-argument posts like “Gaudere is violating my First Amendment rights by deleting that thread!” – I couldn’t agree with you more. To heck with coffee cups and T-shirts – Ed should be selling SDMB Official Clues to hand out to folks like that! 
the “other” board I go on would probably change that OP title to Kerry is a hairy assed communist!