The Church and the state
America's Roman Catholic church has waded back into the forefront of national politics in recent weeks.
Bishops intervened forcefully in the debate over healthcare, pushing amendments that -- according to some critics -- could add new limits to women's access to insurance coverage for abortion procedures.
(Advocates of the changes argue that the language merely continues an existing Federal ban on taxpayer funding for abortion services.)
But the abortion-healthcare debate is only one front in the Church's forward-leaning political activism.
A bishop in Rhode Island has banned Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy from taking communion, because he is pro-choice.
Meanwhile, the Church is threatening to cancel its social service programs in Washington DC if the city's civic leaders stand by a same-sex marriage law that many view as a civil rights issue.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.(The Church has also been a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage legislation here in New York state.)
While the bishops weigh in on these political debates, they are also moving aggressively to cement their authority over a wide range of Catholic organizations that have operated semi- independently.
At a meeting last week in Maryland, the bishops argued that these groups -- many of them more liberal than the church hierarchy -- are "less than fully Catholic."
Here's the view articulated by Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago:
In particular, church leaders have begun discussing ways to "strengthen our relationships" with Catholic universities, media groups that claim "the right to be a voice in the church," and other organizations that work under Catholic auspices, George said.
"The faithful need the bishops in order to be Catholic, and the bishops need the faithful in order to be Catholic pastors," said George, president of the bishops conference.
Polls consistently show the Church leadership to be considerably more conservative on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, birth control, divorce, married clergy, etc.
What do you think? Is the Church providing a steady and valuable moral compass? Or is it crossing the line by helping to script legislation that will affect tens of millions of non-Catholics?
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/22/2009 10:13:00 AM
33 Comments
33 Comments:
Looks like they've decided that whole "render unto Ceasar" quote from Jesus doesn't apply to them.
All of a sudden, my church takes its marching orders from the ghost of Jerry Falwell--many of whose brethren were not so long ago burning crosses in Papists' lawns.
Exactly---the American Taliban---scary stuff when religions starts threatenening the liberty of others. So, when do Jews and Muslims start the effort to outlaw pork?
The Catholic church has lost much of its moral credibility and a lot of its blind followers. It's becoming less relevant.
Mike (raised Catholic)
Crossing the line.
The problem with religions is that the leaders of each one are deluded in thinking that their's is the only correct religion (they can't all be right)
I don't mind the Catholic Church setting the rules in Vatican City, but no religion has the right to set the rules in the United States of America.
Raised RC myself. Became an evangelical protestant, now agnostic.
My cousin, Father Leonard, was ordained in Western NY in 1965. After ordination he went to Peru as a missionary in the barrios.
He was a big advocate of "liberation theology" helping to organize labor unions, schools, clinics and people advocacy groups much to the dismay of the church hiarchy and landed gentry in Peru.
After 16 years working with the very poor he was forced to flee Peru under threat of death. they labled him a Marxist. He was a humanist.
The point? The RC Church is a huge, unwieldly concoction of men, founded by men, who represent conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum.
At this point in time, the Con side of the church has been strenghtened since Benedict became pope.
Anti-gay marriage. Anti-gay period.
I love when the Pope wears his ruby red shoes. How fay.
I find it interesting that every group in the country seems to have a right to engage in the polictical debate - except the Catholic Church.
Could it be that the Church's critics fear the concepts of absolute truth and submission to the will of God?
The Catholic Church denounces the idea of two men or two women having a loving consensual relationship but has consistently and institutionally protected men in positions of authority who molested boys. It makes a big show of denying communion to politicians who support abortion rights but not to those who support savage wars of aggression that kill huge numbers of innocent civilians. If the Catholic Church is willing to deny much needed social services merely so it can preserve its institutional bigotry against gays (except pedophile priests), then that says more about the Church's cataclysmic loss of moral legitimacy via grotesque hypocrisy than anything else. The Church can do what it wants internally but should broader public policy be held hostage by religious institutions? No way!
This post has been removed by the author.
"Could it be that the Church's critics fear the concepts of absolute truth and submission to the will of God?"
You're absolutely right that's what the Church's critics fear.
America is not a Catholic state. It is not a theocracy.
Americans should submit to the Constitution. They can choose to submit themselves to religious leader or book if they wish, but they have no right to force others to do so.
"I find it interesting that every group in the country seems to have a right to engage in the polictical debate - except the Catholic Church."
When a non-profit exploit its tax exempt status to lobby so that certain groups of citizens who DO pay taxes should be denied the same rights that everyone else has, you have to understand that this is necessarily going to cause a wee bit of resentment.
Isn't catholicism interesting? Forget the torture & women losing their rights in the old country, to the dunk the witch & baptizing the slaves in the new world. Why do you think we waterboard so good here?
You want to deny more? Google: Canada - native - holocaust.
When Ratzinger took over as pope, I said, mark my words, the CC is going to become much more radical, and authoritarian, and it has.
They have these cozy little contracts to provide healthcare to lower income families in NYState......what's that about??
I was brought up catholic, did the uniforms, suffered the abuse of the frustrated, mean Benedictine nuns, and survived to become very centered and comfortable w/my spirituality. Took years after getting away from the CC, but I live, most of the time, in peace and harmony.
A red flag went up when Tony Blair turned catholic......I think Ratzinger is dangerous, and is behind the smelly underbelly of all controversies present and future.
Frank thies comment here was very insightful.
f thies, will be keeping splendid eternal company with Darwin, Dewey, Marx, Asimov and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, in the molten fires down below.
Does thou dare to mock the one and true Holy Apostolic Church!
He will go directly "there" too. No purguratory anymore, buddy-boy. No way station between heaven and hell. No hoping that all your people back among the living are lighting devotional candles (at a suggested $3.00 a light) in an effort to convince the Lord that you've suffered enough.
Smart move when the Church recently cancelled out purguratory.
It was getting awfully crowded.
Sinc.
F.G.E.
The RC hierarchy in America had best tread carefully. My understanding of tax exemption is that it is conditioned on abstention from campaigning or lobbying. Not only are the vassals of the Vatican risking the contempt of their subjects but the wrath of the IRS. It is a power not unlike the RC bureaucracy, big, ruthless, and insensitive; insistent on (current) orthodoxy.
Is the Catholic Church acting in a manner different than other lobbyists? Does the Catholic Church have the right to deny communion to a parishoner? Does the Catholic Church have the right to decide when and where to spend their money?
Like them or not, they've got a very profitable business model. Money talks. When the majority of their parishoners decide that the Catholic Church doesn't represent their views, the membership and charitable contributions will start to decrease. If you don't like the ideals that your organization is espousing, you drop your membership, right?
"Is the Catholic Church acting in a manner different than other lobbyists?"
Yes. Most other lobbies have to pay taxes.
"Does the Catholic Church have the right to deny communion to a parishoner?"
It absolutely has the right to tell its parishioners what to do. It absolutely does NOT have the right to tell the state how to treat non-Catholics.
"Does the Catholic Church have the right to decide when and where to spend their money?"
As a tax-exempt organization, it is more limited in that regard than ordinary citizens. If it wants the same rights in that regard as regular taxpayers, then all it has to do is become a regular taxpayer. The Church (and other religious organizations) are trying to have it both ways.
As a taxpayer, I am compelled to subsidize, for example, police and fire service for the dozen or so churches and synagogues in my small city... even though I'm not a member of any of them. This is where "anon"'s example breaks down. Gay and female taxpayers are forced to subsidize these organizations who are dedicated to make sure the state denies them equal rights? Can you really blame them for being bothered by this?
One, the RCC hasn't waded back into the debate, it never left it in the first place.
Two, the RCC can lobby just as other denominations or faiths lobby.
Three, the tax exemption issue does extend to groups that advocate but it stops short of endorsing candidates for elections. National election law is clear, if or when the RCC calls for congregants to vote "for" or "against" a named individual then it runs afoul of election law and the IRS. But until then they're not doing anything that's illegal.
Four, a bishop can deny communion to a parishioner for behaviors or beliefs that are wholly incongruous with the church's moral teachings. P. Kennedy is, according to his own admission, guilty as charged; join another church is what he's being told.
Five, the RCC in DC, NY and elsewhere is being forced to provide health and other benefits to same sex couples, which goes against its moral teachings. Catholic hospitals are not in the business or performing elective abortions. Why, because even in states like NY there are morality exemption clauses.
Six, the RCC and other organized groups, typically comprised of institutions, are often more conservative (or liberal - depending on the group) than rank and file members. More importantly, however, is that US RCC members are more liberal when compared to those from other continents. Should the RCC bend to what American Catholics want? Hmmm, sounds terribly arrogant to me.
Seven, beyond the RCC attempting to affect legislation, you could direct the same question ["is it crossing the line by helping to script legislation that will affect tens of millions of non-Catholics?"] toward businesses or other religious institutions too.
In a pluralistic society where citizens have the constitutional protection to petition their government, the RCC and its members are exercising their "choice" to participate in our government. Does the RCC have power to affect legislation? It's an empirical question, but should they have this option, absolutely yes [just as we all should, Catholic or not].
jpm
Anonymous - November 23, 2009 5:29 PM wrote:
"In a pluralistic society where citizens have the constitutional protection to petition their government, the RCC and its members are exercising their "choice" to participate in our government. Does the RCC have power to affect legislation? It's an empirical question, but should they have this option, absolutely yes [just as we all should, Catholic or not].
jpm"
Anon, not to dismiss your defence of the RCC offhand, because you present several very good arguments that deserve fuller debate....
However, your closing paragraph raises a question in my mind.
Are you saying that you would have it both ways for the RCC? They can interfere with the policies of Congress - to enhance the status and wealth of the RCC, while telling Congress not to interfere with the Church - even when the Church is receiving tax payer monies.
Would you hold this position if (or when) the United States population constitutes a majority population of Muslim or Atheist or New Age Spiritualists?
Frank,
I don't see the actions of the RCC or the ADL or any other religious based entity as interfering with the workings of Congress. That's sort of like saying that if more voters come out in a given election that they interfered with the outcome. Groups have for the last 100 plus years been central to our legislative process.
Two, the Catholic church isn't making money as a corporation would in accepting funding from governments (national or state). They provide services to the poor, etc. because they have resources on the ground, much like Lutheran Social Services does. I'm not sure their status is improved by this but maybe it is.
The RCC is telling DC that they are withdrawing from the delivery of services if the stipulations of acceptance of government funds conflict with Church precepts. I don't see anything wrong with their position other than the recipients will now most likely have to face government entities for services.
I do hold the position that Atheists and etc. can and should petition government. In fact one of my best friends is a former lobbyist for a humanist group that advocated against most things that the RCC supported. We drink lots of beer together and our best conversations are about politics and religion.
jpm
I'm lukewarm on the whole tax-exempt status of churches, colleges and universities, etc. They should pay, perhaps at a reduced rate, but they all take part in political agendas of one sort of another.
As for the CC voicing an opinion- teachers do the same thing everyday and are encouraged by their Union to do so. Shouldn't they be in the hot seat too?
"Two, the Catholic church isn't making money as a corporation would in accepting funding from governments (national or state)."
Well, that's slicing the baloney thin. They don't reject social services funding for "faith-based initiatives," and nobody begs louder for tax money to go to "private" schools than the Catholic schools lobby--basically to keep a "business" open. And some of my church's lobbying issues are more equal than others: I never heard them telling Rick Santorum not to get Communion for his support of the death penalty or wars of choice, which is also forbidden by church doctrine.
It's within the church's rights, maybe, but it smells.
Anon 10:07,
The RCC does reject funding that goes against church doctrine. That was the point of an earlier post.
Also, where the RCC seeks $ is in transportation to & from school (& perhaps books), not in paying teachers or etc. There are Jewish & Muslim schools that do the same thing as Catholic and other Christian schools. The business of keeping Catholic schools open is a tenuous one. Most Catholic elementary, secondary, and higher ed colleges and universities provide students with substantial aid. Most Catholic schools are far from wealthy and have difficulties keeping afloat. And, while Catholic schools might, as you suggest, cry loudest for $, one reason is because they out number all other parochial schools. There's also a good reason for this. The education system of the 19th century & early 20th was decidedly anti-Catholic. They began in response to anti-Catholic sentiments. Instruction books of the time demonstrate this as do laws in NYS and other placed (see Blaine Amendment).
On R. Santorum. I'm not familiar with his positions but as a general rule the RCC is against the death penalty but would and does condone it if there's no other way to protect society.
jpm
Anon. at November 24, 2009 10:07 AM
wrote:
"I never heard them telling Rick Santorum not to get Communion for his support of the death penalty or wars of choice, which is also forbidden by church doctrine.
It's within the church's rights, maybe, but it smells."
Anon. at November 24,2009 11:41 AM"
responded:
"On R. Santorum. I'm not familiar with his positions but as a general rule the RCC is against the death penalty but would and does condone it if there's no other way to protect society.
jpm
November 24, 2009 11:41 AM"
Anon. jpm. at 11:41
The RCC has a great model to emulate from the past when it comes to putting people to death if there's no other way to protect society. (BTW, did you ever hear of prisons).
According to the stories found in the gospels, the Romans, urged on by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, felt that they had to kill a man to in order to protect society. Fine job they made of it too.
Also, you don't completely answer Anons. statement about the RCC's long silence about the illegal war of choice started by Bush/Cheney in Iraq.
It was the late Pope John Paul II, who sent a papal envoy to Bush in February, 2003, with the Pope's message that invading Iraq without U.N. sanction will be "immoral, illegal and unjust."
The American RCC cardinals and bishops overwhelmingly remained silent about the illegal invasion, botched occupation, waste of billions of $$, the torture of human beings that rivaled the Inquisition, and the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
I can't help but see, that that kind of baby murder, which takes place AFTER the fetus is now a child, is quite alright with the RCC.
Anon at 10:07
I'm not done yet.
You present a picture of the many religions that run church based schools and colleges with their hands out for Federal money.
You exlpain how the RCC is struggling to maintain parochial schools and colleges, and that they need taxpayer dollars to stay alive.
I say, let the marketplace of ideas and the progress of time dictate which schools in the private sector remain solvent and more importantly, relevant.
If the RCC would cut its costs on the very expensive vestsments worn by its clergy and its many other showy trappings, it may be able to fund a school or two without appealing to Ceasar for help.
If it were still filling the pews on Sunday with fearful, yet hopeful believers, the coffers would be full and the RCC would not need to lobby Congress like a Babylonian harlot.
I'm not too sure that the government will be able to take our guns without a fight, or stop the freedom of speech.
I am damned afraid of living in a country that does not recognize the separation of church and state.
I meant to address Anon at 11:41 AM" vice Anon at 10:07 (with whom I agree)
Sorry Anon at 10:07
This Anon. stuff can get complicated.
Who, me?
Signed,
Anon 10:07
And you make a good (though a tad too vitriolic, IMO) point about schools, one which reinforces what the other Anon said about Catholic schools rising because of bigotry.
That historical bias is exactly why the Church and its schools should steer clear of federal funding; it begins to tie its hands in ways the recipient can't foresee. I'm a big fan of Catholic schools. That's why I don't want them government-funded.
Dear Anon. 10:07
I attended parochial schools K-7. Midway through 7th grade, my parents had me and my 5 younger siblings transferred to a public school.
I remember, Pre-Vatican II, being taught by nuns that to enter a Protestant church meant the loss of my soul. After Vatican II, ecumenical love was all the rage.
Also, for several years, I was a pretty darned efficient altar boy, serving my church even after transferring to a public school.
But walking into that public school for the first time in Jan. 1967- I was amazed, felt very challenged and somehow...free.
You say I have a tad too much vitriol. I don't deny it my friend.
My vitriol is that of one lone person against an Empire of Faith.
I never even mentioned, as others have previously done on this thread, that the Church is hurting financially, especially in the U.S., due to having to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars settling thousands of sexual abuse claims involving clergy and children.
Not only that, the RCC has lost millions of their faithful to the popular evangelical and fundamentalist protestant mega- churches and television ministries.
Many considered Pope Benedicts "ecclesial communities" speech a few years back to be vitriol ---
John Hooper in Rome and Stephen Bates in London
July 12, 2007
PROTESTANT churches have reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by the Pope insisting they were mere "ecclesial communities" and their ministers in effect phonies with no right to give communion.
Coming just days after the reinstatement of the Latin Mass, Tuesday's document left no doubt about the Pope's eagerness to back traditional Catholic practices and attitudes, even at the expense of causing offence."
How about Bill Donahue of the Catholic League when he said not too long ago - "The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they're too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels."
When the RCC and it's spokes-people use vitriol, they should expect vitriol in return.
My vitriol is directed towards the American RCC's silence when it comes to these wars of choice and the subsequent horrors it has brought human beings, esp. the children, both our own and "theirs".
flectere si nequeo superos, Achaeronta movebo
If I cannot move heaven I will raise hell.
Virgil's Aeneid - Book 7
HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYBODY!!!
MAY WE BE ABLE TO CELEBRATE MANY, MANY MORE!!!
BUT, RIGHT NOW, LET US BE THANKFUL FOR THE ONE WE HAVE TODAY!!!!!
To the poor, destitute, homeless, jobless, depressed, repressed and food challenged...my apologies for shouting, and...
have a nice day??? :-(
Frank,
On a point made earlier about the death penalty; of course I've heard of prisons. But since the RCC is global the Catechism recognizes that not all societies can imprison to protect people & there might be cirmstances that might arise when an execution is justified. One thing about law (or cannon law for that matter) is that an institution cannot be perfectly crafted to instruct on all possible cirmstances.
Re: the comments on the "illegal war of choice"; I didn't comment on it for several reasons. One, because such a phrase is loaded and I didn't feel like engaging in a pointless (read nongermane)discussion. I'm not going to disect it for you.
More importantly, on Kennedy being denied communion, he's been publically obstinate in his abortion position & thus the bishop's decision. Supporting the Iraq war, given the misinformation by the previous admin, was what a majority of American's did. Many regret it now and some were Catholics, there support wasn't an obstinate oposition to church teachings. Now, if a public official were to support the death penality in the way Kennedy has supported abortion he/she should also be denied communion.
BTW, I'm not an apologist for the Church and often find myself at odds with it but there needs to be some balance in these threads.
jpm
Balance - that ever elusive goal. Is the Church above the criticisms that I have just leveled? Am I speaking falsely? And am I wrong in my desire to stop the Federal govts funding of Church based schools regardless of their denomination, creed or doctrine?
The following excerpt is taken from the Catholic Catechism:
"2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
Source(s):
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fif…
All that being said, the Catholic Church remains very quiet about the use of the death penalty in Red China (of course the State runs the Church in China, even appointing Cardinals and Bishops) and does not condemn the U.S. for use of the death penalty, a nation with plenty of prisons.
As for Patrick Kennedy and his "public" obstinance concerning the abortion issue - it would be best for Patrick to recant and submit to the authority of the Church? How many RC's in the U.S. take a public position backing the use of the death penalty in America, and the "illegal, immoral, unjust" war in Iraq? Again, no less an authoritiy figure than the late Pope John Paul II (Saint?) rendered this judgement. Any American Catholics banned from communion for going against the Pope's findings?
Unofficially, there are priests and nuns engaged in working against war and the death penalty. I know of, and have met, priests and nuns who are actively engaged in pro-peace/anti-war efforts, some willing to have themselves arrested by the State. Several were recently arrested breaking into a nuke submarine base, and others were recently arrested protesting the U.S. Army School of the Americas.
Anonymous November 29, 2009 9:45 PM
wrote -
"More importantly, on Kennedy being denied communion, he's been publically obstinate in his abortion position & thus the bishop's decision. Supporting the Iraq war, given the misinformation by the previous admin, was what a majority of American's did. Many regret it now and some were Catholics, there support wasn't an obstinate oposition to church teachings. Now, if a public official were to support the death penality in the way Kennedy has supported abortion he/she should also be denied communion."
So, in other words, if one wants to keep receiving communion in the RCC, it is best to keep quiet and private counsel about war, abortion and the death penalty?
A parishioner who publicly states, "I'm so glad that Timothy McVeigh was executed, now let's go do some more" would be barred from receiving communion?
A parishioner who publicly states, "Let's turn Iraq into a sea of glass" would be barred from receiving communion?
A parishioner who publicly says "abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest, domestic violence, or child abuse" definitely is barred from communion.
The RCC, picking and choosing its moral and ethical standings for nearly 2,000 years.
Frank,
Take a deep breath before writing. If you read what I've written you'll see the points I was making. Like them or not.
And of course, the Church isn't above criticism.
And, all the other questions you raise would be fun to discuss over a beer (or bottle of Jameson's) but I have a job and can't respond.
JPM
JPM, glad you have a productive job. Seriously.
I like your suggestion of a beer and a shot of Jameson's. Not a bad way to begin a conversation.
Twenty-two shots later...a different story.
JPM, I do read through each posting with a scrutiny that sometimes is not appreciated. And I am always a skeptic. Not much appreciated, either.
Years of reading through thousands of legal documents I suppose.
Sorry for coming across as dogmatic as the Church I'm critiquing. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home