Opposition to Obama's controversial invitation to speak at Notre Dame's Commencement, is divided — especially among Catholics.
Regular readers of Blogcritics Magazine's Politics pages know that I am not a religious man. What most of you don't know, however, is that I have more than a passing familiarity with the Roman Catholic religion. Understandably, most of you won't care about my personal religious viewpoint, but I bring it up it because it is germane to this discussion.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Irene Wagner
Cindy! You're...you're not thinking of giving your heart to Jesus are you?
27 - Irene Wagner
Eh, I'll find it for you. Probably something about the abortion discussion, I'll bet.
28 - Clavos
Cindy, your computer is no place to keep contraceptives...
29 - Irene Wagner
Cindy, it's the .pdf file at the bottom.
I know you and I disagree on abortion, and I doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on that tonight, but what do you think about requiring someone who is appalled by the thought of abortion to perform one? There are women who would go to a practice that did not perform or refer to abortions.
I suppose you MIGHT say, well, is that worse than not letting a woman who wants an abortion an abortion. And I'd say, "no." And then you'd say....But I don't want to put words in your mouth. I can't stay on much longer tonight to see what you say tonight, but soon...
30 - Irene Wagner
Sacre BLEU, Clavos!
31 - Irene Wagner
I mean I'd say, "yes."
32 - Irene Wagner
...To your hypothetical question, Cindy, not Clavos'...
33 - Dr Dreadful
LOL @ #28. Clav, you're incorrigible...
In my view, Notre Dame got themselves in this pickle in the first place with this silly custom of bestowing honorary degrees. (And yes, I know it's not just them.) Especially giving one to a serving politician, which is just playing with matches, let's face it.
Now they're Damed if they do and Damed if they don't. (I can't believe no-one's said that yet.) I understand the concern about Obama's stance on abortion, but there's also the tiny question of insulting the President of the United States...
34 - Jordan Richardson
I know this particular issue is about abortion at the moment, but what if it were about blood transfusions? There are many religious individuals who do not "believe in" blood transfusions, yet they obviously save lives and are sometimes the only procedure that can be performed that can save a life.
How does that refusal to perform the necessary care square with the Hippocratic oath?
The truth is that it doesn't square with the oath, IMO. As far as I can tell, the obligation of the doctor is to his or her patient. It is within the patient's right to refuse any procedure that may help them, but it remains that the "special obligation" of the doctor is to help the patient primarily, not themselves or their particular religious or philosophical persuasion.
Imagine rushing into a hospital, any hospital, with an emergency situation where an abortion is the only measure that can save a woman's life. And imagine rushing into a hospital that refuses to perform abortions based upon "moral ground." It may be a slightly-stretched hypothetical, but I think it begs the question as to where our doctors' priorities ought to be and where they are when discussions become politicized in this fashion.
Some might ask "What if a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion because of A, B, or C?" And I would have to reply, so what? If abortion is legal and a recognized part of the profession, it is not up to the individual doctors to cherrypick which parts of medicine they choose to perform and which ones they do not.
IMO, the rights of the patient to have a competent, skilled, prepared physician doing all he or she can to help trumps any religious rights in these cases.
35 - Cindy
rofl @ Clav!
Thanks Irene for the file. It was really because you were showing me the state of the thinking in evangelism. It was broad thinking. I wanted to finish it to understand your ideas. Then I lost it.
Jesus has my heart, as does Ghandi and Tolstoy and MLK. (Mother Teresa, no-- not so much, I'm afraid. I read Michael Parenti though, not Hitchens.) But no, I ain't gettin' religion. :-)
I don't think anyone should be forced to perform abortions if they are appalled and even if they aren't. I think women should go where they want and doctors should do what they want.
36 - Irene Wagner
Ah thanks Cindy. Glad to help :)
37 - Cindy
I see the time is in pacific time. It tricked me into thinking you were long gone Irene. I couldn't tell this conversation was in real time.
38 - Cindy
I can't go along with forcing people to do what we think they should do. So far, it hasn't been a good plan in any way it's been done that I can think of.
Now if, as a community, we all participated in the hospital decisions, I would strongly be against having a doctor who refused to perform an abortion on the emergency team.
39 - Clavos
Jordan, in an attempt to answer your hypothetical dilemma in re blood transfusions, I believe only the Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to them. Back in my corporate days, I had a secretary who was a Witness from whom I learned a lot about their tenets. From what she explained to me, I think it highly unlikely that a Jehovah's Witness would be able to make it through medical school (because of their beliefs), much less obtain a license to practice.
40 - Cindy
*bows 5 times to the editor god(s)*
41 - Jordan Richardson
Doctors voluntarily enter a profession in which they are at the service of the patient. They voluntarily take an oath of service and swear to uphold that oath, therefore they do not simply get to "do what they want." Doctors can't duck out on the icky parts, so why should they be able to do the same with procedures that they morally disagree with?
42 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos, exactly where I'm going. A JW would not finish medical school due to their beliefs and therefore would not be in the position to deny necessary care to a willing patient. 'Course, they can deny their child blood transfusions all they like and inflict their beliefs on innocent kiddies all they like, but that's another matter.
Doctors who, as a result of ethical, moral, or religious standards, will not perform a particular medical task required of them to save the patient's life or prevent illness are not doing their job. They voluntarily took on the profession as a doctor and, as such, their oath and their dedication of service to the patient trumps their own personal beliefs.
Should we start the act of divvying up hospitals into Abortion and No Abortion sections? Maybe that's the extent of ridiculousness required to solve this silliness. But the bottom line is that the patient's rights must come first, as per the Hippocratic oath. You wouldn't expect an anti-abortion individual to go work for Planned Parenthood, but there are parts of medicine that transcend religious ground.
If we start allowing doctors to opt out of certain bits and pieces of scientific procedure necessary to treat illnesses, we're really entering shaky ground. The whole science vs. evolution thing in schools would be a cakewalk compared to this.
43 - Jordan Richardson
Ooooh, looks like the Monster released my other comment too!
44 - Ruvy
Irene,
There are two additional concerns we address to the attention of our fellow-citizens. On the one hand, we are especially troubled by the fact that a generation of culture warring, reinforced by understandable reactions to religious extremism around the world, is creating a powerful backlash against all religion in public life among many educated people. If this were to harden and become an American equivalent of the long-held European animosity toward religion in the public life, the result would be disastrous for
the American republic and a severe constriction of liberty for people of all faiths. We therefore warn of the striking intolerance evident among the new atheists, and call on all citizens of goodwill and believers of all faiths and none to join with us in working for a civil public square and the restoration of a tough-minded civility that is in the interests of all.
.............
As this global public square emerges, we see two equal and opposite errors to
avoid: coercive secularism on one side, once typified by communism and now by the
softer but strict French-style secularism; and religious extremism on the other side,
typified by Islamist violence.
At the same time, we repudiate the two main positions into which many are now
falling. On the one hand, we repudiate those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce others. Whatever the faith or ideology in question communism, Islam, or even democracy, this position leads inevitably to conflict.
Undoubtedly, many people would place all Christians in this category, because of
the Emperor Constantine and the state-sponsored oppression he inaugurated, leading to the dangerous alliance between church and state continued in European church-state relations down to the present.
These are interesting points of view. Considering what I see in articles coming out of Blogcritics Magazine, especially as they relate to American life, it is evident that the militant anti-clericalism that has infected and finally crippled Europe, both morally and economically, has reached your shores, mush as did the black plague two centuries ago.
A pity.
45 - Clavos
Jordan,
'Course, they can deny their child blood transfusions all they like and inflict their beliefs on innocent kiddies all they like, but that's another matter.
Sarcasm aside, I defend their right to do so, however, in practice, the law gives the final say to the physician -- case in point: my wife has an advance directive which indicates she does not want to be intubated; we have been told, not only by physicians but by our attorney as well, that if the attending physician determines that intubating her will save her life, he has the obligation to do so.
Similarly, a physician has (and should have) the right to choose what services he will provide; my urologist won't treat my cardiovascular system or set my broken finger, he'll send me to a doc who will.
46 - Clavos
If we start allowing doctors to opt out of certain bits and pieces of scientific procedure necessary to treat illnesses, we're really entering shaky ground.
Perhaps in Canada they can't, but here they can and do, routinely, for non-religious reasons.
47 - Clavos
Cindy #40:
Why are you making obeisance to the "editor gods"? They certainly are not worthy of it.
48 - Clavos
One other point, Jordan,
Abortion is rarely "necessary to treat illness."
49 - roger nowosielski
Very good presentation, Clavos.
I do happen to believe this is a storm in a teacup. My understanding of the majority of Catholic population in America is as follows:
1) liberal rather than conservative;
2) less affluent than the Protestants;
3) mostly immigrants - Irish, Italians, etc;
I also wouldn't compare the piety of American Catholics with those who are still in their home country - e.g., Ireland or Italy.
All this seems to suggest that it's just a move by the Catholic church hierarchy, of making a stand, because their control over the rank and file has steadily been slipping. In addition, the "pro-choice" position, as I believe you've already indicated in one of your comments, is not as offensive to American Catholics as it is to the Christian Right. Again, because of the demographic factors, American Catholics are by and large not a part of the Christian Right and far less politicized as a movement - especially around the "pro-life" issue.
50 - Cindy
#47 Clav - It was a miracle, I tell you! My comment rearranged itself into the proper form--as if helped by an invisible hand.
51 - Cindy
#41 - Jordan,
Did they have a say in what that oath entailed? My thinking is much like Lysander Spooner's in No Treason.
I see a real overarching problem with both the left and the right--the liberal and the conservative. I'm working on a blog post regarding the many ways this problem appears as far as I see. Both have, the way I see it, an inability to get beyond the authoritarian.
52 - handyguy
I just watched the actual speech. It will surprise no one that I thought it was typically masterful, turning the coniroversy itself inside out.
Obama's presidency is surely about more than abortion law. And as has been pointed out, GW Bush as governor executed a lot of prisoners, snd yet he spoke at Notre Dame, as have most presidents, without this kind of political hissy-fit occurring. [He spoke in May 2001, before the controversial wars that might have added another reason for objections by some Catholics.]
It's a minority of Catholics, claiming to speak for Catholics as a whole, that generated this teapot tempest.
53 - roger nowosielski
Not even that, Handy. I think it's the Catholic hierarchy that is raising the stink. As I argued earlier, American Catholics and not that political, nowhere near like the Christian Right.
54 - Clavos
I just watched the actual speech. It will surprise no one that I thought it was typically masterful, turning the coniroversy itself inside out.
So did I.
It was, unsurprisingly, a masterful speech; I expected nothing less, though I don't see how he "turn[ed] the controversy inside out."
A pity his leadership skills don't measure up to his oratorical skills, but again, not surprising; he's had very little leadership experience -- barely more than a hundred days' worth.
55 - Clavos
It's a minority of Catholics, claiming to speak for Catholics as a whole, that generated this teapot tempest.
A minority, yes, especially in light of the fact that Catholicism is the largest (by membership) religion, in the US, and largest Christian religion in the world.
Nonetheless, it's a sizable majority, more than 360,000 American Catholics signed the protest declaration.
56 - Dave Nalle
3) mostly immigrants - Irish, Italians, etc;
Just as an aside, we really need to get over this practice of thinking of the Irish and Italians as "immigrants." The Irish came here more than 150 years ago and the Italian migration was almost 100 years ago.
Dave
57 - Clavos
re #58:
Should have been "it's a sizable minority.
58 - roger nowosielski
It just won't let me post the link to the speech.
59 - roger nowosielski
Obviously, I meant ex-immigrants, Dave - as distinct from the first, the British wave - the Plymouth guys, if you know what I mean.
60 - roger nowosielski
"Catholicism is the largest (by membership) religion, in the US"
I would regard this fact as misleading; surely all the Protestant denominations in the US must surpass the Catholic membership at least five to one - just a rough guess.
61 - Clavos
Of course they do, Roger, but as you say, they are multiple (and widely varying) "denominations," not a single religion.
Jehovah's Witnesses have virtually nothing in common with Episcopalians, yet they are both "Protestant denominations," although they are definitely not the same religion.
62 - Bliffle
How sad:
"...2004 statement by U.S. Catholic bishops declaring that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
So I conclude that genocide and harboring mass killers is not "...in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" since they are going to make a saint of Pope Pius.
63 - Clavos
Exactly why I reject religion, bliffle.
Religions have killed far more people in history than madmen and despots have.
64 - roger nowosielski
Well, I'm excluding sects, of course (even the Mormons). But by and large, I'd think that the distinctions between the mainstream Protestant churches are minimal, so we can group them together; but their differences with the Catholic faith is substantial.
The Religious Right certainly is a composite. The little dogma differences is no obstacle.
65 - Clavos
One of the reasons why I reject religion, bliffle.
Religions have killed far more people in history than madmen and despots have, and at least the madmen and despots are not usually hypocritical about their killing.
66 - roger nowosielski
Well, it looks like the Vatican grew conservative over the years - long ways from Vatican II, in mid-seventies, which represented a kind of thawing.
Don't forget, too, the sex-scandals is an issue that's already behind. So perhaps the best defense, they figure, is to go on offense,
67 - Clavos
But by and large, I'd think that the distinctions between the mainstream Protestant churches are minimal, so we can group them together...
You might want to think so, Roger, and that's your right, but they are nonetheless all Protestant, and all separate religions.
68 - Clavos
long ways from Vatican II, in mid-seventies, which represented a kind of thawing.
Which resulted in the greatest loss of the church's membership on modern times, so apparently the laity didn't like it.
69 - roger nowosielski
All I'm going to say on this is that the split between the Reformation churches and the Holy See is far greater in matters of theological substance than the differences between them. Even the Seventh-Day Adventists - I was a member once and attended their Theological Seminary for two years - with all their peculiarities (like dietary laws, no jewelry, or observance of the Sabbath rather than Sunday) - have more in common with all Reformation churches than with Catholicism. They all tend to regard Rome as a perversion, and the Pope as the anti-Christ.
70 - roger nowosielski
You're right. The laity didn't but the theologians - and they were all radicals and progressives then - did. Even the Protestant churches were affected, especially by the works of Rudolf Bultmann, German theologian.
I was at Andrews, Berrien Springs, MI, at the time.
71 - Clavos
The theologians don't count -- the laity does.
It was a huge mistake, which the Vatican realized, which is why they've been backpedaling in recent years.
72 - roger nowosielski
Well, you know, Clavos, how the theologians view the laity? With contempt. For not being able to read the word in the original language and therefore dumb. Of course, the laity is who pays the dues. Although in the case of the Catholic Church, I think they have enough assets to just make it off their investments.
I worked on Wall Street, corner of Broadway - just opposite the Trinity Church - a prime piece of real estate even then. I'd hate to think how much it's worth today.
73 - roger nowosielski
Here's the link.
74 - Clavos
@#81,
That's exactly why they're losing their members, Roger, they've lost their hold on the people because of, ironically, one of the seven deadly sins: pride/hubris.
Which, come to think of it, they have in common with most modern pols.
75 - roger nowosielski
Well, I would have never thought that American Catholics were that conservative, especially on the abortion issue. The few I knew personally certainly were not.