For reasons I don't understand, the issue of abortion rights is a hot button issue in the Presidential campaign. There is little, if anything, the President can do either to criminalize or further to legalize abortion, as I pointed out in an article here last month. Sure, he (or she) can nominate Supreme Court justices, and some may be nominated during the next four years. However, that doesn't count for much, even if the President were successful in getting seated a Supreme Court justice whose views on abortion reflected his own,
Supreme Court justices sometimes do not behave as either the President or the Senate contemplated that they would. They tend, in most cases, to look to the unique facts, the procedural context of the case, and the U.S. Constitution to make up their minds; when they don't, they should. That is their job.Their job is not to impose their own religious, political or even moral views on the rest of us. Nevertheless, abortion is a hot button issue.
I am an Agnostic/Atheist; Senator Biden purports to be a staunch Roman Catholic; Governor Palin is a conservative Christian. I favor abortion rights, pretty much as set out in Roe v. Wade, as does Senator Obama. Senator Biden's church teaches that abortion is a very bad sin, yet Senator Biden supports liberal abortion rights. Governor Palin's religious convictions have led her to the conclusion that abortion is a very bad sin, and she opposes it; she has demonstrated the sincerity of her convictions on this point in her public statements as well as in her personal life, and has been criticized for doing so.
Senator Obama has several attributes which I admire; Senator Biden, fewer. Senator McCain has several attributes which I admire; Governor Palin substantially more. In the interest of disclosing my personal predilections, It is my intention to vote for Senator McCain and Governor Palin. One of Governor Palin's attributes which I much admire is her tendency to guide her personal life and her public statements in accordance with her beliefs, be they considered religious or moral. She has other attributes which, to me, are very important as well. Unlike any of the other three, she is not of the establishment Democratic Party or Republican Party, which in recent years has seemed Hell-bent on sending the country down the toilet. However, that is not really within the scope of this article.
Let's look at Senator Biden. He advocates liberal abortion rights, which his church vigorously opposes. During an interview on Meet the Press, he said
Look, I'm a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility. . . . I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith.Yet, he continues to advocate liberal abortion rights and to receive communion, even though it has been strongly affirmed by many bishops and others higher in the Roman Catholic Church that he should not.
Archbishop Raymond Burke, who just left his see in Saint Louis to take over the Apostolic Signatura, the highest Vatican court in Rome, said last week that not only should pro-choice politicians abstain from Communion but those in charge of the sacrament have a duty to refuse it.Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jordan Richardson
So basically the reasoning here is that Sarah Palin is more sincere and trustworthy ("she doesn't have her fingers crossed behind her back") because she follows her church's thinking and Biden is not as sincere and trustworthy because he doesn't follow a particular part of his church's thinking.
I don't want to get off on a rant about how little this reasoning says about your understanding of the average believer. I disagreed with MANY of my church's positions on a myriad of social issues, yet I was not insincere about any of those issues. Biden appears to be upfront and doesn't seem to be pandering to his church. I would question his sincerity had he been deceptive, but I believe he wants to be a Catholic Christian and, like many other Catholic Christians, struggles with part of the doctrine.
In my view, that registers Biden as an independent thinker willing to trust his heart and reason over manmade church doctrine. The idea that you cannot say the same for Sarah Palin appears alarming.
2 - charlie
Another thing: Sarah Palin has made it known that she supports abortion if the life of the potential mother is in jeopardy. Now does that mean she is going against her church's teachings? [No.] Or does she have a moral understanding of how to deal with critical situations in life - like Joe Biden - that is wider and more heart-based than what a man-made church believes? And I'm a Catholic, BTW, who doesn't believe every piece of scripture in the Bible but believes in leading a Christian life, based on everything I've learned. When I sin, I repent by saying the Act of Contrition or going to confession. And so does every true Catholic/Christian, whether they are liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life.
3 - Pablo
Charlie,
Is this the same religion that slaughtered around 7 million people, and tortured countless others for centuries? I hope not.
4 - Silas Kain
Yes, Pablo, it is. If non-Muslims stopped for a few minutes and read the history of the Muslim struggle against the Roman Church perhaps they can understand the militancy which runs rampant in the Middle East. At least Muslims look at Christ as a great Prophet.
5 - Cannonshop
Um, Silas, the Militancy was there before the Crusades. The word "Assassin" comes from the Hashishin, suicide commandos from a particularly weird sect of Islam (even for the times). A reading of the Q'uran would also yeild some rather juicy bits on how to wage Jihad, and how to treat non-believers... unlike the Catholics, though, the Muslims never gave up on conversion by the sword, nor do they socially and societally isolate those who wish to practice it.
As for the Catholic Church that killed some millions (probably a touch more than seven) and tortured millions more for centuries, there was this little thing called "The Reformation", you may have heard of it? For those who haven't, there's this thing called "Protestantism" that cropped up a few years after a guy called Gutenberg invented the Printing Press. It happened because a Monk named Martin Luther saw lots of Hypocrisy in the church, and abuse, and said something about it. There were LOTS of internal wars over this, but the end outcome was that the giant, monolithic, homicidal, and corrupt structure of the Christian World was forced to change its habits, leading to things like the Enlightenment (from which the west derived all this neat science stuff, the idea that maybe Reason should be used instead of Superstition, and a weird, wacky idea that Kings are not granted the right to rule by being picked by a god for the job.) The shift took centuries, but happened. Unlike the Middle East.
6 - Dave Nalle
The militancy is written into the Koran and reinforced over and over again in the actions of Mohammed who was a ruthless, murdering bastard and his successors who were conquerors and oppressors and militant exclusionists of the worst kind.
Islam has had its moments of glory and greatness, but they have all been times when forces of reason temporarily bucked the overall trend. And now, in its days of decadence (rather like Christianity) it's gone weird and sick and ever more violent. And starting from a worse place to start with it has gone very, very evil.
Put the terrorism aside. Pretend it doesn't exist. Even without it, this is a religion which kills homosexuals, women who are raped and those who convert to another religion. It is a religion/culture which revels slavery and thinks of education solely as a tool for programming the young to engage in suicidal warfare. It is a religion/society with gulfs between rich and poor which stagger the imagination and in which the rich can commit any crime with impunity and can kill, abuse, rape and exploit with no consequences. It is a religion/society in which bigotry and racism and sexism every form of intolerance is viewed as virtue, as demonstrating one's power.
So forget the terrorism. Just hate the evil which it comes from.
Dave
7 - Joanne Huspek
This campaign and the comments I see on BC is (or perhaps has been), for the most part, entering the phase where people are reacting based on emotion.
I'm emotional on several issues myself, but when choosing a president, I would like to think my choice is based on fact gleaned from research, not whether or not I like a person or if their views MATCH EXACTLY mine. I can tell you as an independent that there isn't a candidate around whose views exactly mirror my own. That's why I - myself - have to take a sensible approach.
I know that others don't feel the same, and that's cool. Heck, my mother voted in her first election after becoming a citizen for JFK, simply because he was Catholic and she thought he was handsome.
People should realize that votes are cast for a variety of reasons, to include some that may seem nonsensical to you or me. I've seen it happen here in Detroit where the people voted in a thug. They knew he was a thug, but they still cast their collective ballots for him, when I would not do that.
Dan makes a valid point in that no matter how you feel about abortion, the laws aren't going to be changed in a day because this guy or that is the President.
8 - Daniel Miller
My limited understanding of the Roman Catholic Church is that it is less cafeteria style than most Protestant churches. Abortion and euthanasia are anathema to the Roman Catholic Church, and in another article I wrote,
That abortion and euthanasia are critical matters of belief within the Roman Catholic Church seems clear. For a Roman Catholic to claim that there can be legitimate diversity of opinion within the Roman Catholic congregation concerning them seems, to me, to be rather strange.I do find it encouraging, on one level, that some who profess to be Roman Catholics support abortion rights. However, on another level, I submit that it calls into question either the sincerity of their adherence to the very heart of their Roman Catholic faith, or the sincerity of their public utterances on other matters or, perhaps, both.
Dan(Miller)
9 - Jordan Richardson
So, if I take this correctly, you'd rather have someone who held unquestionably and blindly to Church Doctrine that is, in fact, debated daily within many Catholic circles I know than you would have someone who actually questioned the doctrine and came to their own logical conclusion based on evidence.
Dan, I don't know anyone who follows all church teachings. That does not make me question their sincerity, their faith, or their capabilities. Instead, I applaud their honesty and their integrity to discover that nobody speaks for God(s) on this planet and that church laws, however "holy" some might deem them to be, are merely manmade.
10 - Christopher Rose
Personally, I don't understand this Ratzinger idea of moral issues having different values. Nor do I understand why war or the death penalty would be less important than abortion or euthanasia. In fact, I would have thought it should be the other way round...
11 - Daniel Miller
Christopher,
I don't understand it either or, to the extent that I understand, agree with it. But then, I am not a Roman Catholic. Many years ago, when I found that I could not accept the most important teachings of Christianity, I ceased to be one and would never label myself as one.
Dan(Miller)
12 - Silas Kain
The word "Assassin" comes from the Hashishin, suicide commandos from a particularly weird sect of Islam (even for the times).
Good spin but not all the facts. But I forgot. We have limited attention spans so we'll rely on the sensational and ignore all the facts. That's an Obamian thing to do. If you REALLY want to know more about the etymology, click here. If not, throw that baby out with the bath water.
.. there was this little thing called "The Reformation", you may have heard of it? For those who haven't, there's this thing called "Protestantism" ...
Oh my. The Catholics and other Christians have evolved. More spin. Another product of the Reformation? Pat Robertson. James Dobson. Jerry Falwell. Different players, the same militancy.
...corrupt structure of the Christian World was forced to change its habits, leading to things like the Enlightenment...
Somebody's been smoking the stuff the assassins are selling and I want some! There's nothing "enlightened" about the manner in which the extreme Christian Right has done business in America.
It is a religion/society in which bigotry and racism and sexism every form of intolerance is viewed as virtue, as demonstrating one's power.
Are you citing Muslims, extremist Christians or extremist Jews here? That statement could apply to all of the above. So here's my open can of worms - there's no difference between a Nazi, Mr. Wexler, James Dobson or a Muslim extremist. It's the same game, just different game pieces.
13 - Clavos
Jordan,
I'm not being argumentative here, but as an ex-Catholic, I can tell you that this entire paragraph:
is in complete opposition to Catholic dogma, and the Church would disagree completely with you, especially as regards the part I highlighted. As far as the Church is concerned, if one, as a public figure, participates in the facilitation of abortion and euthanasia in any capacity, be it helping to pass laws or even advocating in favor of those practices, He/she is in violation of the most sacred of the Church's beliefs and is prohibited from receiving the sacraments, including communion.
The Church is neither democratic nor liberal. It is autocratic and top-down, and it believes that, on matters of faith and dogma, the Pope IS speaking the word of God, and there is no discussion, no debate. Its dogma are not open to interpretation or discussion, and once a Catholic has been warned by a Bishop (as in Biden's case), he/she is subject to excommunication.
Matters NOT considered to be faith and dogma ARE open to discussion.
If Biden is a true Catholic, he knows all this, so either he's choosing to accept the Church's excommunication, and lose his faith (and privilege to die in absolution), or he's being insincere to the American people; as far as the Church is concerned, there's no middle ground.
14 - Jordan Richardson
the Church would disagree completely with you, especially as regards the part I highlighted.
The Church would absolutely disagree with my personal opinion on that particular topic, but it speaks to a broader and more important issue.
Its dogma are not open to interpretation or discussion, and once a Catholic has been warned by a Bishop (as in Biden's case), he/she is subject to excommunication.
Hans Küng is a good example of this. He still considers himself a Catholic and met with Pope Benedict in 2006 to discuss theology. Küng, as most Catholics would know, had a heavy hand in the Second Vatican Council and is among the Church's more liberal theologians. While he has lost his missio canonica (the faculty to teach Catholic doctrine), he's still a member of the Catholic Church. Point being that there are, despite the dictation from the Throne, a good deal of Catholics that still disagree with and adamantly argue against some of the Church's doctrinal points and remain Catholics through it all.
If Küng wasn't excommunicated, it seems unreasonable to assume Joe Biden would be based on his abortion stance.
And, further to my overall point, I would be hard-pressed to doubt the sincerity of an indivudal like Küng (many Catholics would disagree, many others would agree) both in terms of his faith and his vision for the Church.
So when you claim that Biden is between either losing his faith or his sincerity, you had better also apply the false choice to centuries of other theologians that dared challenge Church teachings. I don't think this counts as a question of sincerity, as I think Biden has proven it with his stance. You claim that he's insincere, when at best he's one of millions of Catholics that openly disagree with key Church doctrine.
I guess that makes for a lot of insincere people.
15 - Clavos
Actually, what I said was that either he's willing to risk his faith OR he's insincere, because that's literally the position he's in.
If he's not being insincere, then the Church should make its decision in that context.
16 - Jordan Richardson
Ah.
So you figure that Biden is essentially pandering to pro-choice individuals at the expense of Church dogma and, in a roundabout way, his faith?
Sorry if I'm having trouble grasping your stance, Clav.
17 - Daniel Miller
I guess that makes for a lot of insincere people. Yep, sure does. If one elects to claim membership in the Roman Catholic Church, then one should accept its teachings, particularly its key teachings. I don't accept the key Christian teachings and therefore am not a Christian.
Whether Senator Biden (or Speaker Pelosi or Senator Kennedy for that matter) will actually be denied communion is for their church to decide. Thus far, all I have heard is a lot of noise and fury, signifying nothing. Whether Senator Biden et al are comfortable with one leg on one side of a wide river and the other leg on the other side is for them to decide. Whether I accept their sincerity is for me to decide, and I have done so.
Dan(Miller)
18 - Clavos
So you figure that Biden is essentially pandering to pro-choice individuals at the expense of Church dogma and, in a roundabout way, his faith?
Not necessarily. I actually believe that he IS sincere about being pro-choice. However, if he is, he's no longer a Catholic, no matter what he may consider himself.
Like Dan, I consider myself not a Christian for just such a reason (actually, several reasons); but I think Dan's point is the important one here: if you claim the faith, live it, according to the teachings of the faith you claim.
19 - Jordan Richardson
In terms of the abortion discussion, I'm not prepared to ignore the fact that the Church position on it has changed throughout the years. What's a good Catholic to do when the Church changes "key doctrine?"
The truth is that no Pope in the history of the Catholic Church has called the teachings on abortion as "infallible." Not a one. So while one might interpret the stance as "key," it is certainly not considered infallible by the Throne. But Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views.
St. Augustine had the point of view that early term abortion required the same penance of any other sexual sin, making it no worse than any of the others. In the Enchiridion, he held that abortion was certainly not murder: "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified"
Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled." For the record, St. Thomas Aquinas considered ensoulment to take place "well after conception." The resulting Church discipline for abortion was penance. No excommunication, nada.
Before that, the Didache asked some serious questions about the Church's teachings on abortion. Namely, it asked whether the position on abortion was basically being used to cover the sin of fornication or adultery. It was thought that early Church opposition to abortion came as an offsetting result of the pagan beliefs, meaning that the Church distinguished itself from these religions by opposing what they had no problem with. Pagans typically had no issue with abortion and gay sex, so the early Church did.
The Didache also set up the idea of hominization, which is when a fetus becomes "human." The debate carried on in the Church (and still does).
It wasn't until Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam that the penalty for abortion became excommunication. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt the stance was harsh and conflicted with early teachings on ensoulment. So he moved the goalposts and issued a stance that stood for nearly 300 or so years: Sedes Apostolica (no punishment stricter than local civil law or that based on sacred canon law).
Pope Pius IX brought back excommunication as the punishment for it later on, of course. After a few more flip-flops, the Church of today passed right through a few more pronouncements and settled on the idea, for the moment, that aborton is always wrong. But again, no Pope has declared this teaching infallible.
So it's certainly not fair to say that this doctrine is "key" in line with ages of Church history. As far as I know, there are only two infallible pieces of Church dogma: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. If Biden disagreed with those stances, he'd be an insincere Catholic. But that he, and millions of others, disagree with Church teaching on abortion is simply the latest in a long line of opposition to the doctrine.
20 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos, "the faith" is far, far more than a compilation of ever-changing, ever-evolving pieces of doctrine. I think that's something all religious people agree on.
21 - Daniel Miller
Jordan,
You say, As far as I know, there are only two infallible pieces of Church dogma: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Dear me. That's pretty thin soup. Somehow I thought that the Trinity was pretty important, along (perhaps) with the existence of God. But then, as a non-Christian, I may be wrong.
Anyway, the point of the article was that abortion is a red herring, and should have precious little to commend itself as a focus of the Presidential campaign.
Dan(Miller)
22 - Jordan Richardson
Dear me. That's pretty thin soup. Somehow I thought that the Trinity was pretty important, along (perhaps) with the existence of God.
In terms of teachings that the Pope has declared infallible, those are the only two. I'm assuming that Catholics would assert the Trinity and God's existence as foregone conclusions, unlike abortion which is pretty damn grey.
the point of the article was that abortion is a red herring, and should have precious little to commend itself as a focus of the Presidential campaign.
Agreed. I have to admit to not being able to fully relate to the fuss about the issue up here in Canada. Any opposition to it as a legal element was pretty small and went away quickly.
23 - Clavos
There are others too, Dan(Miller), such as the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.
According to this list, there are over 400.
Clav(os)
24 - Silas Kain
The Roman Church is NOT the one true Church. I am Unitarian now after generations of Roman indoctrination. At one time I thought that I was called to the priesthood and after a year of seeing what goes on behind the scenes I was left disillusioned and hungry for ultimate Truth. The Roman Church under the guidance of the patron saint of multi-level marketing (St. Paul) is nothing more than an ancient version of AMWAY and they use the Bible as their product catalog. The remaining "reformist" sects are perpetuations of this MLM scheme and the lemming congregations just don't get it yet.
25 - Jordan Richardson
Clav, the list is of dogmas of the Catholic church. That is to say nothing of infallibility.
Father Pat McCloskey has a different view still.
Of special note to the context of our discussion from McCloskey:
Even though councils have given infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, they have also made some prudential judgments about which there can be very legitimate disagreement.