Catholics and Obama
Pope Benedict XVI has gone home after a spectacularly successful visit to the United States, but we American Catholics are still making news. Today is the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, and the “Catholic vote” is widely perceived to be important in determining this outcome. The numbers suggest that Senator Clinton is doing well in this demographic block in Pennsylvania. But this doesn’t begin to answer the question who will best be able to appeal to Catholics in the general election in November.
I am a member of Senator Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Council. And as I watch tonight’s returns, I will keep three things in mind:
1. The Catholic vote is not monolithic As EJ Dionne has noted, “Despite a certain convergence of views among Catholics‹a concern for social justice, a collective dedication to the value of the family. Catholics haven’t voted as a bloc since the early 1960s, when they solidly backed America’s one and only Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. Catholics’ loyalties are unpredictable and in flux.”
2. Getting to know Senator Obama. Senator Clinton is already well-known to voters. But as voters have come to know Senator Obama, he has been slowly but steadily gaining ground among Catholics, as they come to see who he is and what he stands for. Many Catholics are responding to his vision of the common good and his values on issues such as ending the unjust war in Iraq, providing decent jobs, ensuring affordable healthcare for all, and working for comprehensive immigration reform. Many have also been inspired by his life choices, especially his decision early on to work as a community organizer with parishes in the South Side of Chicago.
3. Hope is Contagious. For Pope Benedict, hope is quintessentially a theological virtue, along with faith and charity. But hope also has a place in the worldly realm, where it is quintessentially the virtue of the young, who communicate it to their elders almost as a gift. What impresses me is the commitment of younger Catholics to Senator Obama’s candidacy. The younger members of Catholics for Obama United have recently launched a Facebook site, which has already surpassed in two weeks the number of members Senator McCain was able to sign up in two months.
He is clearly giving them hope. He is giving me hope too.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I just looked over his Advisory Council — a fine list and including Grant Gallicho as well! While I also support Obama and am curious about similar Catholic Advisory Councils for Clinton or McCain. Also, would love to know more of the history of such formal and informal councils and clerical or religious involvment.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Given the (ugh) quality of Catholics who worked with GWB (like Deal Hudson), i wouldn’t want to know McCain’s.
Given the fact that none of the three major candidates is Catholic, having such a fine group attach to Obama is an interesting phenomenon.
While it may have to do with the “hopoe” theme, I suspect “unity” plays a big part in it.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
And what is Senator Obama’s life choice for the unborn?
on April 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Michael,
Let me state up front that I am not in anyone’s camp. I’m politically agnostic–really atheistic–considering I don’t believe any of the current candidates meet the standards of Faithful Citizenship. That said, I will be interested to see Grant and Cathleen’s pretzel twisting on this one.
Barack would do everything in his power to expand access to abortion. He gives the appearance of considering abortion access an act of compassion and is on record stating that he would even encourage his own daughter to choose this option if she had an unintended pregnancy rather than make her pay for “a mistake” by carrying a baby to term. Of all the candidates, he is the one who is coziest with Planned Parenthood and he isn’t at all ashamed of it.
No doubt that Grant and Cathleen will argue that whatever social programs or economic initiatives he will launch will cause abortion rates to drop (this Freakonomic assertion has been debunked incidentally), but there is no doubt that any slight gains that could be met by these initiatives will be completely offset by his active efforts to expand abortion access on every front.
I can understand Obama’s appeal. He certainly is likeable, and I do believe he is a man of integrity. For instance, while I strongly disagree, I appreciate that he is unapologetic in his pro-abortion convictions. Nevertheless, of all the candidates, he appears to be the most difficult to square with Faithful Citizenship which states that while many issues must be considered, life issues are primary.
I once got into a lot of hot water on this site by suggesting that the “Commonweal Catholic” is identified by his or her open discomfort and general squishiness with regard to pro-life issues (both abortion and euthanasia as well as ESC), but I find it difficult to see how this current activism does not give further evidence to that assertion.
I will look forward to the acrobatic justifications that will follow. I can only pray that Cathleen and Grant have good chiropractors. They’re gonna need ‘em.
Greg
on April 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
There are many things I like about Obama, but his positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research preclude my voting for him. At the so-called “Compassion Forum” last week, there was the following exchange between Obama and one of the moderators, Jon Meachum:
MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?
OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.
Obama must have known a question like this was coming–it was the Compassion Forum after all–yet IMO he handled the question badly. If he didn’t “presume to know the answer” to Meachum’s question, but yet “there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential (?) life” that has a “moral weight,” then why wouldn’t he err on the side of saying that conception is the onset of human life? Whether such life is entitled to legal protection is a separate and distinct question that he and I would also differ about.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t much better in her answer. She, too, used the phrase “potential life” to categorize the product of conception. What else but human life is the 46 chromosome, fully-blueprinted fertilized egg that results from the union of two 23 chromosome gametes, one gamete from a human male and one from a human female? “Potential life” in that instance is a contradiction.
Obama and Clinton are trying to have it both ways. They can’t offend their pro-choice supporters by taking the position that the unborn are entitled to legal protection, but they are also clumsily, IMO, trying to use sleight of hand to turn the straightforward biological question about when human life begins into an abstraction that gives them political wiggle room.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Greg,
The water apparently is hotter for you and as the support for GW Bush did not make a scintilla of difference in pro-life one wonders whether all that is left is posturing on this most fraudulent of issues. I would really like to see the overthrow of Roe vs Wade which would guarantee that no one would be left in the Republican party except pro life advocates. Meanwhile, the real issue is between Clinton and Obama and will we suffer a repetition of hackneyed phrases from those who have only one issue? Spare us.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Cathy,
If we can get back to your thread I am curious to know your mindset on not supporting the first woman to run seriously for president since, unlike Grant, your portfolio is quite abundant with reference to this issue. Knowing you I can imagine that you have reasoned this out rather thoroughly. I do wonder why you did not address this to begin with.
Further, I did not see anything distinctly different from Clinton in your description of Obama. Obviously, he is new and younger people will be more inclined to gravitate towards him. But he is still very green and we really do not know how he will handle certain things. The fact that he has come about face negative in Pennsylvania is startling.
Second, many are doubting whether he can attract all democrats. Previously this was more of an objection to Clinton but now is acutely being wondered about Obama.
For Obama it has been Springtime until now. We are still learning about him.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Greg,
There are five Catholics on the Supreme Court. Why haven’t they overturned Roe v Wade?
on April 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
David,
The snarky answer to your snarky question is, of course, that Kennedy is a Commonweal Catholic.
But the more thoughtful answer would be to note the irrelevance of your comment to the issue at hand which is, “Can faithful Catholics support Obama?”
Grant and Cathleen, without appearing to appeal to any data from Faithful Citizenship practically pass out from anoxia with their breathless cries of “Yes! Yes! Yes!”
I respond, “Ok. Says you. But this doesn’t appear to add up.”
To which William Collier says, “Yes, my perousal of the data seems to second Popcak. What gives?”
To which Bill responds, “Lalalalalalalalala, back to you Cathy”
and David seconds with some, frankly, strange non sequiter. Seriously David, if you have a relevant point, I wish you’d make it. Obama is the issue because Grant and Cathleen made him the issue. Not SCOTUS, not Bush, not even McCain or Clinton.
The challenge, which is entirely relevant because it is now what Cathleen and Grant have signed up to do, is this: Using the data of Fathful Citizenship and Obama’s record, how does an erstwhile faithful Catholic support him? It’s an honest question–although perhaps moot since Obama just lost PA.
Regardless, I await an intelligent response.
Greg
on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 am
Regardless, I await an intelligent response.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Greg,
The thinking behind the question was that people who make abortion an issue in the suitability of a particular person seeking (or in) a public office most frequently (in my opinion) would be opposed to that person no matter what his or her position on abortion was. So the question in my mind is why do some Catholics find fault with Obama or Clinton on the abortion issue but never find fault with the five Catholics on the Supreme Court who actually have the power to do something. It is a question about the consistency of the Catholic pro-life political argument. It doesn’t, of course, answer your very specific question.
It’s my opinion that the Catholic teaching on when life begins (and the teachings that derive from that on abortion and stem-cell research) is a religious teaching (as opposed to a verifiable fact or a scientific truth), and one that other religions do not agree on. For example, Jews believe that a human life begins at birth, not conception, and that an abortion to save the life of the mother is fully warranted. I do not think that Catholic politicians (or any politicians) should be expected or required to impose a religious teaching on the people in a pluralistic, secular democracy.
Also, it seems to me that even if one believes that it is a matter of scientific fact that life begins at conception, the argument as to how one must vote when abortion is one of the issues is not simple. I think there is truth in Bill’s assertion that abortion is a “fraudulent issue.” I doubt seriously that there will make a significant difference regarding abortion in the United States if Republicans or Democrats win in November.
Also, I do wonder why, if the Catholic Church expects it members vote in such a way that Catholic teachings are incorporated into American laws, then why not the teachings on the indissolubility of marriage, the immorality of artificial birth control, and so on? I can see why some issues would be considered more important than others, but that wouldn’t mean the other issues weren’t important at all.
Having said that, I do sometimes wonder if one could participate in public life at all if the teachings of Jesus were taken seriously. What would Jesus make of rich and powerful men who would argue, in essence, that they are comfortable using their immense power not to bring about what’s good and right and just, but merely to interpret a document written over two hundred years ago according to their judicial philosophy instead of their conscience? (So we’re right back to the Supreme Court!)
on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
One further point. I don’t see anyone of either party taking the Catholic approach to the abortion issue as laid out in Declaration on Procured Abortion, which would require an extraordinary compromise between left and right that will never happen. I would be inclined to vote “pro-life” if this were the goal: “[A] whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.” Is that George Bush’s or John McCain’s position on abortion?
on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
As a registered Democrat, I came to grips a while ago with the notion that I’m not likely to have a candidate that supports the Church’s teaching on abortion.
Then again, determining the best leader for an entire country cannot hinge on the sole issue of abortion. Economics, world trade, terrorism, war, genocide, oil, nuclear proliferation, education, health care, violence are all big issues that are very much in play at this point in time. How candidates respond to these issues is easily as important to me as their responses on abortion.
If I look at both Clinton and Obama from a Catholic perspective where social justice matters, where caring for the most vulnerable among us matters, then I don’t see much difference.
Both want to improve health care options, both want to disengage from the war in Iraq, both are concerned about education, and while they differ in their solutions to these issues, I’d have to say both candidates have made a conscious effort to address them.
So I can’t look at Obama and declare that he fits into my Catholic world view because of what he stands for without also declaring that Clinton fits into that world view just as well.
In short, he’s hardly unique in either his outlook or his approach and try as I might (and believe me, I’ve tried!) to jump on that “Obama is the hope of America” bandwagon, I’m just not seeing that big of a difference.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Gregory —
How to justify Obama’s opposition to a law protecting live infants? Come on, he signed up more Facebook users! If that doesn’t prove that he’s a good guy, I don’t know what would.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
The Supreme Court managed to present the only real protest against the Pope’s visit last week. The day he arrived, the five Catholics anchored the majority that allowed the painful killing if convicted criminals. The day after he left, they allowed the killing to resume. So much for their support for Catholic positions on life issues.
People are voting for Obama because he can reach across divides to create a consensus on issues and move the country forward. I see no reason to think he is less capable of that with abortion than other issues, so Catholics can vote for him based on hope. His specific positions seem to be irrelevant.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
I cannot speak for anyone but myself but I think that a faithful Catholic may vote for Senator Obama, although I don’t think that they are required to do so.
This year as in 2004 all of the current Presidential candidates support one or more policies that promote acts that the Church considers intrinsically evil. In the current presidential election, both the Republican and Democratic candidates support embryonic stem cell research, which the United States Bishops’ statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship—A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States, explicitly identifies as an example of an intrinsically evil act.
In these circumstances, when all candidates support policies that are contrary to Catholic teachings, the American Bishops state that a Catholic may decide to vote for neither candidate or may decide to vote for the candidate that they consider the lesser of two evils and the one “more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” The Bishops’ statement does not provide particularly clear guidance regarding how a Catholic should balance completing concerns when faced with this situation because there are no easy answers.
In evaluating the candidates and their positions, one should not only consider what they say but the impact that the proposals of the presidential candidates will actually have. Obviously, in order to have an impact, the candidates must act in support of their positions. The Republican Party’s platform has called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions since the 1976. Nevertheless, in 1999, all of the Republican Party candidates, including John McCain and George Bush, acknowledged that America was not ready to ban abortions. Since he was elected, President Bush has spent no time or effort trying to get this plank in the Republican Party’s platform enacted. During his 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain has said he is pro-life but he has not indicated any willingness to spend time and effort seeking a constitutional amendment to ban abortions.
In addition, as part of this analysis, one must not only make a judgment regarding whether a candidate will make efforts to implement his proposals, but also what affect those proposals would have on the number of abortions in the United States if they were implemented. For example, the ban on partial birth abortions cannot be shown to have prevented a single abortion. It only forced women and their doctors to use a different abortion technique. Conversely, evidence exists that shows a strong link between poverty and abortion rates and suggests that decreasing the number of women living near or below the poverty level may reduce the number of abortions. Research shows that the more financially secure a woman is, the less likely she is to choose to have an abortion. In addition, programs that strengthen the social safety net may lead to reductions in the number of abortions, while programs that weaken the social safety net may lead to increases in the number of abortions.
For example, between 1994 and 2000 the abortion rates for poor and low income women rose by 25% and 23%, respectively, while the abortions rates for women in other income groups declined. Prior to this period, abortions rates for women at all income levels in the United States had been declining. One possible explanation is that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter “the Welfare Reform Act”) caused women to reassess their ability to care for a child given the lower welfare benefits available and caused more of them to have abortions. The Welfare Reform Act ended indefinite cash assistance to women with children and replaced it with a cash assistance program with strict time limits and work requirements. The drafters recognized that such cuts might lead to an increase in abortions and included cash awards for the five states in each year from 1998 to 2002 that showed the greatest decrease in nonmarital birthrates in which abortion rates remained stable or showed a decline. The total number of abortions dropped almost five percent between 1994 and 1995, and again between 1995 and 1996, but after 1996 the rate of decline in the total number of abortions in the United States per year averaged about 1.3 percent per year until 2005. If the abortion rates for poor and low income women had remained at their 1994 levels rather than rising, the total number of abortions in 2000 would have been even lower than the 1.31 million that occurred in 2000, which was down seven percent from the estimated 1.42 million abortions that occurred in 1994.
While both the 2004 Republican Party Platform and the 2004 Democratic Party Platform addressed the issue of abortion in the United States, neither party acknowledged nor sought to address this strong link between poverty and abortion in its platform. Nevertheless, in order to fully assess what impact a candidate will have on the number of abortions in the United States, one must examine how a candidate’s policies will impact the poor.
The Bishops acknowledge that a wide array of legal actions must be undertaken in order to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, including the passage of laws that “encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.” Unfortunately, they only highlight this fact in Part II, not Part I. As a result, many American Catholics may mistakenly conclude that they are obligated only to work for the criminalization of abortion and need not concern themselves with supporting policies that provide health care to the millions of uninsured Americans or that alleviate poverty.
Senator Obama is the only candidate who has devoted an entire page on his campaign’s web site to outline his plan to alleviate poverty. Among other things, he proposed to increase transportation assistance, increase housing assistance, to increase the minimum wage, mandate that every employee be entitled to seven paid sick days, and to invest $1 billion into creating transitional jobs to help the poor join the workforce.
I have talked about this at greater length in my paper, “Trying to Vote in Good Conscience”, which is available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1106719
on April 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Thanks for the many constructive posts here. Greg Popcak, I have a question for you, which is a bit of a tangent, namely, your rationale for political agnosticism or atheism. Faithful Citizenship (and other documents from the bishops) strongly enjoin Catholics to vote and take part in politics and changing society. Moreover, of course, we must always ask forgiveness for what we do and what we have failed to do. It seems no candidate will be ideal, or even close. But is opting out a “faithful” option? Or does it simply evade responsibility? This isn’t intended to be snarky in any way–an honest question. I obviously argue that we have to be invloved, but I’d like to hear the counterargument. Thanks. David.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
The generic response would be that voting is an irrational waste of time for any one person. This is why I refuse to believe that I could conceivably have any “duty” to vote in national elections.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
A couple of quick takes: I see we are back to making one issue only count when it gets right down to it and after some previously fine comment on the total life ethic by Bill Colier, I’m disappointed in his post.
I think Greg’s commen ton Commonweal Catholics has a distinct bovine aroma to it and didn’t deserve to be graced with some of the commentary here.
If people ar ereally pro-life. listen to the Pope abd really live the full Gospel – that’s the way to get the message across. In this imperfect world of politics with so much ideological propaganda, to say because of one thing a candidate is unworthy styrikes me as deeply unrealistic.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bob–
I haven’t changed in my commitment to the consistent ethic of life, and I think my comments were intended to reflect that, but I value your opinion and would be interested to know (either online or offline) in what way my post was a disappointment. My point was that Obama and Clinton should speak clearly about why they are pro-choice and that they shouldn’t waffle on the biological fact about when life begins. As I said, I value your opinion if you want to be more specific about my comments.
Prof. Brown–
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, and I don’t disagree that there is a link between poverty and some abortions, or that a candidate’s policies on alleviating poverty should be taken into account.
You stated that “one must not only make a judgment regarding whether a candidate will make efforts to implement his proposals, but also what affect those proposals would have on the number of abortions in the United States if they were implemented.” As most people here know, Senator Robert Casey introduced the “Pregnant Women Support Act” in the Senate about five months ago. (It was introduced in the House of Representatives more than a year ago.) This legislation contains a panoply of provisions aimed at reducing the incidence of abortion. Many of the provisions are aimed at addressing the poverty issue you mentioned.
I’d like to be corrected by someone about this, but in all the reading and all the listening I’ve done as to Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain, I have yet to hear that any of them has expressed support for the passage of this specific legislation, which has been endorsed by the USCCB as a “common-ground initiative” for decreasing the incidence of abortion in the U.S.:
“Catholic teaching affirms the right to life for every person- born and unborn- and insists every life is sacred and has inherent dignity. The Bishops’ Conference consistently and unequivocally supports laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over abortion and that work to address poverty, provide health care, and offer other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has worked closely with lawmakers to seek passage of the Pregnant Women Support Act. The Bishops’ Conference has said ‘By providing practical resources and information, the bill will empower pregnant women to make healthy choices for themselves and their children, born and unborn…The Pregnant Women’s Support Act is truly a common-ground initiative to reduce the number of abortions in the United States…Everyone can agree that no woman should choose abortion under financial duress or because she is threatened by domestic violence during her pregnancy.’”
I personally find the candidates’ silence on this legislation deafening during this presidential campaign.
And each of them is committed to opening the federal funding faucet in support of embryonic stem cell research. Unlike abortion and the poverty issue you eloquently set forth, there seems to me to be little if any poverty connection to the destruction of human life for medical purposes. As the USCCB says in Faithful Citizenship, “[c]loning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong.” If some Catholics have been able to square Faithful Citizenship’s pronouncements on abortion with support for Obama or Clinton or McCain because of the hope that their policies may incidentally decrease the number of abortions, then how does one do that on the “always wrong” destruction of life by ESC research? Is it essentially a non-issue because we as Catholics must vote for somebody in this election (borrowing from David Gibson’s comment above)?
on April 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
There is a confusion of language about the beginning of life [which happened millennia ago] and the beginning of an individual life. Science confirms the Church’s position: an individual life begins at conception. Consider the development of a seedling.
That abortion is “but” a one issue consideration overlooks the fact that it is an important, and an overriding, issue. This is evident when it is called by its proper name – infanticide. Acceptance of infanticide leads to other evils – euthanasia, among them.
Would objection to a Holocaust denier be called a one issue consideration?
Violently promoted by abortionists is “sex education”. Violently resisted is complete sex education. As Charles Laughton asked of his wife Elsa Lanchester [in HENRY VII]: “Madam, did your mother never tell you that babies are not found behind gooseberry bushes?”. Hilarious is the recent observation from those quarters that “abstinence does not work”. And never heard is the obvious notion that pregnancy is not a disease.
It is not incurious that the tools of the birth prevention people are the same as the historical tools of prostitution.
Come, come, let us be serious. The promotion of abortion and birth prevention and condoms is but a promotion of licentiousness. And those who bear the burden are those who can become pregnant.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
William Collier,
As I made clear in my original post, the choice facing Catholics is either to vote for a candidate who supports one or more policies that are intrinsically evil based on an appraisal of their stands on other issues or to not vote at all. I personally feel that it is better to vote than not vote because if you don’t vote, then you ceding to others the power to determine the course of U.S. government policies.
In their statement, Forming Consciences, the Bishops warn Catholics to avoid two errors: (1) failing to make any ethical distinctions between different issues involving human life and dignity and (2) using these distinctions to ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity. The strategies of the political parties to compartmentalize voters encourages voters to fall victim to one or the other of these errors. The Bishops advise Catholics that following the “consistent ethic of life” provides a way to avoid these errors.
The consistent ethic of life encourages people to adopt a form of holistic ethics. Holistic ethics requires people to recognize that they have moral responsibilities to groups or systems in addition to the individuals or elements that constitute those groups or systems. It attempts to do a better job of developing principles that reflect the interdependence of people and their natural, social, political, and economic environments. Holistic ethics does not deny the centrality of human dignity to ethical inquiries but recognizes that human beings are starting points, not end points, of moral concern. Adopting a holistic ethical viewpoint would require people to accept a more expansive notion of the common good than the one on which most of them currently rely. In the context of the current presidential contest, it would require Catholics to examine the entire spectrum of the candidates’ positions and evaluate how they accord with the Catholic Church’s consistent ethic of life from conception to natural death. Thus, the candidates’ positions in favor of intrinsically evil acts are part of this evaluation. They are not “non-issues.” This evaluation will entail a number of prudential choices, which means that faithful Catholics can arrive a different conclusions regarding for whom to vote.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Science does not (and cannot) confirm that at conception, the result of the union of a sperm and egg is a human being and a person with rights equal to those of a “post-born” baby or an adult. If science did confirm that, there would be no debate about stem cells or abortion, because that is largely what the debate is about. To quote the old example in response to your seedling comment, an acorn is not an oak tree, and an egg is not a chicken. No one ever argued, in the old days of not eating meat on Friday, that eggs were forbidden or chicken was allowed because an egg and a chicken were the same thing.
Michael J. Sandel argues, in The Case Against Perfection, that nobody really believes that human life (in the sense of personhood) begins at conception, because nobody gives a second thought to the millions upon millions of fertilized eggs that die before implantation, vastly outnumbering the ones that actually survive to result in pregnancy and birth. He also asks what you would do if confronted with a fire in a fertility clinic if you could save either a living nurse working in the clinic or a canister of frozen embryos, but not both. I would add to that if you would want to explain to the nurse’s spouse and children that it was your obligation to save the greatest number of lives.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Bill Collier, my disappointment is your initial point that the Obama life position “precludesyou) from voting for him”
I think that puts us back in the one isssue mold as a bottom line – there is clearly much to criticize in his approach to the issue and i do not take objection to that line of argument.
Still, I think we need to deal with a panoply of issues across the Faithful Citizenship spectrum
This morning’s local rag prominently headlined ‘World’s Misery Index Continues to Rise.” Issues of starvation, preventable death, especially in children, not to mention genocidal horrors etc. are also (to me) major life issues
But I’m belaboring the obvious and I think this election will be to some degree about the lesser of two evils.
I also think though that the unification of the Country in real dialogyue and participation (as Mr. obama promotes) could provide a venue for mitigating the deep divide on the abortion issue we face (no matter what his personal views.)
But to be repetitive again, if that should occur, we better be practicing what we preach.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I’m having difficulty understanding Bob’s difficulty in understanding Bill Collier’s position. It would appear that in Bill’s constellation of concerns legal protection for the unborn ranks high. What is wrong with disqualifying candidates a position taken by a candidate on an issue deemed non-negotiable?
It seems to me that we all have thresholds that must be met to merit our vote. I can’t imagine progressives disparaging as “back in the one issue mold”a Republican who, although otherwise inclined to support McCain, refuses to do so based on McCain’s position on the war.
I wonder if we could all stipulate that the issue of abortion legislation is thorny, that both the criminalize virtually all abortions position and the current permit vitually all abortion positions are highly problematic instead of the thread of exasperation that seems to reappear every time this issue is raised.
It is a
on April 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
With all due respect, Cathleen, perhaps you are not old enough to realize that in 1960, the gruesome act of abortion, including partial birth, was not protected by Law. During that period of History, there did not exist a legal threat to the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family.
Respect for the Sacredness and Dignity of Life as well as respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family is what gives stability to a Civil society. I fail to see how the lack of respect for these crucial issues could be considered a sign of Hope. This is certainly not what Christ had in mind when , through the Gift of His Passion, we received the Hope of Salvation.
I would srongly suggest that the “Catholic” Advisory Board that you mention, simply by it’s definition, has the moral obligation, to represent the Catholic View.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Thanks, Bob, for your follow up post, and thanks also to Prof. Brown. I was speaking only about myself in being unable to vote for Obama. I don’t question the good faith (religious or secular) of Catholics who do the calculus Prof. Brown set out and who come to a different conclusion than I have. My unable-to-vote-for mentality extends to Clinton and McCain, too (and Nader if he enters the race). Perhaps, as Prof. Brown says, I’ve “ced[ed] to others the power to determine the course of U.S. government policies.” That may be true, but on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, we’ve ceded the power to determine the course of U.S. government policies to President Obama or President Clinton or President McCain, all proponents of federal funding for ESC research. I don’t see my vote of conscience, or, more correctly, non-vote of conscience, as any different than that of a conscientious objector who can’t bring himself or herself to choose between two candidates who are in favor of armed agression as a course of U.S. government policy. We don’t have that situation right now (thankfully), but for me the abortion and ESC research issues have taken on such a degree of importance. As an army of one, I’ve of course ceded power to others, but if enough people with the same thinking as mine (lol!) were to refrain from voting this year and were to express their opinions in public about why they feel they can’t vote, then perhaps there would be some pyrrhic yet moral victory for them in making their dissatisfaction known.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I never cease to be amazed that Catholics and others of similar minds want the government and political candidates to make up for what the churches have failed to do, i.e., convince members and non-members alike of the undesirability of abortion. The Catholic Church in particular has a long history of trying to coerce when it cannot convince. The results are usually disastrous.
Congress will not do anything to restrict availability of abortion because their constituents in the main want it to remain legal. The Supreme Court will not overturn Roe V Wade. They have a better chance now than they have had in a long time and they don’t deal with it.
As John Paul II said on September 10, 2000, “always propose, never impose.” The “proposing” part of Catholicism regarding abortion has been neither persuasive nor compelling to the majority of people
on April 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
P.S., You may want to begin with the definition of the word living: moving, growing and responding to it’s enviroment.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I attempt not to tear out my hair when a term in discussion is shifted. Thus:
Me: ” Science confirms the Church’s position: an individual life begins at conception. Consider the development of a seedling”.
Mr. Nickol: “Science does not (and cannot) confirm that at conception, the result of the union of a sperm and egg is a human being and a person with rights equal to those of a “post-born” baby or an adult. If science did confirm that, there would be no debate about stem cells or abortion, because that is largely what the debate is about. To quote the old example in response to your seedling comment, an acorn is not an oak tree, and an egg is not a chicken”.
Science DOES confirm that A human life begins at conception. Just so a new puppy, or a kitten, or a chick, begins at conception. Whether any of these have a soul is a matter beyond the capabilities of science.
An acorn is indeed not an oak tree, nor is an egg a chicken. But if you have ever done anything with seedlings, you would recognize that an acorn which begins to sprout is a small oak. And if you ever candled a fertilized egg, you would have seen a small chicken. Merely call the new life a “fetus” does not change that it is a new life: a new, individual, clearly marked living creature.
[I am not certain of the meaning of a "post-born" baby. Or indeed if the term has any meaning. Are there pre-born babies?].
on April 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Some have asked me to explain what “Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” means. It means: “what you gratuitously assert, I gratuitously deny.”
I give credit to Cathy and Grant in that they resisted the temptation to answer those with a single issue preoccupation. I do have some disagreements with both of them, especially regarding Obama. But I certainly honor and admire that they are concerned about many of the other issues that are part of the Catholic agenda. Those who are interested in assessing them on one issue might imitate their passion and concern for the whole gospel.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
About “Catholic” issues — are these the ones Catholics care most about? If so, then many of them are the same issues that most others folks care about. Or does it mean what Catholics care about *because* they are Catholic? Abortion might have been such an issue if the two Democratic candidates were not both pro-choice/abortion. I really don’t see it as an issue for most Catholics, especially since it is neither a legislative nor executive issue at this point. It’s a judicial one, so appointment of Supreme Court justices might become an issue later.
If we agree with Pope Benedict that truth and truth-telling are some supreme value, then it seems to me that as Catholics we ought to take a candidate’s veracity into consideration when deciding whom to vote for. Presidents give important example both good and bad, especially to the young.
David Nickol —
In Catholic teaching as I understand it, it is only *matrimony* which is indissoluable. Matrimony is sacramental marriage and is somewhat different from marriage. The teaching on matrimony as indissoluble is a matter of Revelaiton only, or so the Vatican teaches. Marriage, on the other hand is a matter of common experience and so is one of those topics which can be known on purely natural bases using our reason only. These issues are the ones which are properly debated in the public square.
As to contraception as a “religious” issue, many predominanlty Protestant states had laws against it until the Supreme Court overthrew the laws. But, again, it can be argued about on purely rational grounds.
As to abortion and stem cell research, it seems to me there is another huge language problem involved in the discussions, viz., the meaning(s) of “life” and “human life”. It seems to me that still implicit in the Church’s pronouncements on the subject is the old Aristoteliqn definition of a human person: a rational animal. But these days the meaning of “rational” is also extremely fuzzy.
Anyway, the Church has taught *at least* since Aquinas that human life/ a person/a rational animal does NOT exist immediately. However, the Church has also taught that the creature in the womb which exists *prior* to the person *does* have a right to life as does a person. (It beats me how a non-person can have a person’s right to life, but that’s the teaching.)
This issue could be debated in the public square appealing only to biology, psychology and metaphysics, using logic, but Rome doesn’t seem to have any official arguments about it to offer, though some theologians do give full arguments which agree with Rome’s pronouncement.
My big problem with the Church in the public square is that it does *not* usually debate purely ethical issues at all, not with any depth. It mainly makes pronouncements: “The Church teaches that . . .” Such pronouncements without any premises to back them up won’t convince anybody (including many of us Catholic laity) that the Church knows what it is talking about.
on April 24th, 2008 at 11:15 am
With all due respect, Elizabeth Brown, when referring to the strong link between poverty and abortion, you failed to mention the link between poverty in the U.S., and the break down of the Family structure. The lack of respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family has lead to the break down of the Family structure in our society.
on April 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
With all respect, Miss Olivier, your statement is false that “the Church has taught *at least* since Aquinas that human life/ a person/a rational animal does NOT exist immediately”. This is a common error, to believe that the writings of St. Thomas are doctrine. He was a theologian, not a pope.
The Church has very carefully kept away from statements about purely scientific matters. Its doctrines, its dogmas, its teachings are religious. And the existence of a soul in the “fetus” or “embryo” is a religious teaching.
“A person’s a person, no matter how small”.
Equally distressing is your statement:
“My big problem with the Church in the public square is that it does *not* usually debate purely ethical issues at all, not with any depth. It mainly makes pronouncements: “The Church teaches that . . .” Such pronouncements without any premises to back them up won’t convince anybody (including many of us Catholic laity) that the Church knows what it is talking about”.
Have you examined the many tedious tomes in which the doctrines of the Church are explicated? Are, as the saying is, the doctrines are unpacked? St. Thomas is a good place to begin. He is wearingly tiresome with his questions and answers, but he does cover the ground.
on April 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
What Thomas Aquinas thought, which has now been shown as error, was that movement felt at ” quickening ” was the start of Human Life. Science has proven through the use of technology and Ultrasound, that there is movement at Conception.
The Truth about the Catholic teaching that Life begins at Conception can be found in the document, Evangelium Vitae. ” An embryo is an individual, no matter how small. While the embryo receives cells from the mother and the father, it is neither the mother nor the father.”
In scientific terms this means that the embryo has it’s own unique DNA.
on April 24th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
With all due respect , Ann, the Catholic Church believes in the Word Made Flesh, as He has revealed Himself in the Trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching of the Magisterium. One does not debate Divine Truth. The Church’s Mission is to defend and explain Divine Truth, which is exactly what it has done in the public arena. Keep in mind that by Catholic Church, I am referring to those who are in communion with the Magisterium of the Church. One can not be Catholic and be autonomous.
Abortion and the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family, remain issues to be addressed by Catholics ,despite the fact that the Democratic candidates are pro-choice. With the introduction of a Catholic Advisory Board, one can be found in the unique position to change the party’s platform on these issues and truly rally around the cry, ” Yes We Can”.
Just so you know:
Here are some examples from scripture that confirm the Catholic Church’s teaching on Conception:
” Before I formed you in the Womb, I knew you.” ( Jeremiah 1:5 )
“Yahweh called me when I was in the Womb, before my birth he had pronounced my name.”
( Isaiah 49:1 )
My Favorite: ” And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the Babe leaped in her Womb: and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘ Blessed are you among Women and Blessed is the fruit of your Womb’.” ( Gospel of Luke )
on April 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
To Greg Popcak:
Reading your comments, I ask myself, “Why does he say things like this? What is he trying to accomplish?” It seems to me that you’re only hurting the pro-life cause. I’d guess that many people are so put off by the tone of your comments, that they don’t even get around to considering the pro-life argument.
What could be more arrogant, more off-putting, than things like “I await an intelligent response” or “Seriously David, if you have a relevant point, I wish you’d make it.” Do you think people are open to the views of a person with that kind of attitude?
If someone said to me, “We’re having a forum on abortion. Who do you suggest we invite to give the pro-life position?”, I’d give them William Collier’s name, but I wouldn’t give them yours.
Why? My fear is that you’d take, toward the others on the panel, the same kind of dismissive attitude you express toward Grant Gallicho or Cathleen Kaveny. Without even having seen a word of what they might say in reply to you, you announce that it will only amount to “pretzel twisting” and “acrobatic justifications.”
Does anyone listen to people who speak like that? How different your tone is from that of Simone Weil, as quoted by Matthew Boudway in another post today:
Honestly, Greg, it looks to me as if your way of “wrestling” is very different from Simone Weil’s. I find her way much more convincing. “One can never wrestle enough with God,” she says, “if one does so out of pure regard for the truth.” I don’t hear you saying that.
on April 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Gene Palumbo beat me to it.
One of the problems in not going forward with the consistent ethic of life but cherry peicking abortion and “the sanctity of marriage” – a thornier complex issue- is that it is just cherry pecking what someone perceives as THE ISSUE.
That often leads to a perception of arrogance and close mindedness.
(I fear we’ll have this problem in any on-going analysis of BXVI”s talks here.)
This is not to say that there is room and real room with much more needed for rdadical Christian practice like pacifism/conscientious objection. But the expectation that all should adopt that kind of posture or that all have to cherry pick my issue is neither demanded nor useful – instead we’re all called to live out the demands of the Gospel in the struggles of our lives.
It strikes me that for whatever you thought of Benedict’s visit, he was positive and humble as a way of showing us how to witness. It would be neat if that spirit, with a good dollop of intellectual modesty, was a hallmark of this ongoing discussion.
on April 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Nancy,
I see a problem here, which is that under our form of government, civil law must be formulated for secular purposes, not religious purposes. The Church may make any arguments it chooses to make, but for lawmakers to base laws on divine revelation as explained and defended by the Church would mean those laws were unconstitutional. The problem, of course, is whose version of divine revelation gets to be made into law? Should Catholic thinking on abortions to save the life of the mother be enacted into law and imposed on Jewish women, whose religion tells them something different?
Regarding “quickening,” it certainly isn’t part of the Church’s teaching now, and wasn’t in the very early Church, but it seems to have been accepted for roughly a thousand years, sometimes even being affirmed at the papal level (Gregory XIV, in 1591). If the Church was right during the first few centuries, and has been right during the last few, it must have been wrong about this important matter from about the fifth to the sixteenth century. That’s a long time to be wrong!
on April 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
With all due respect, David, we are talking about a Catholic Advisory Board. In order to be a Catholic Advisory Board, it’s views must be consistent with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church or it is simply an Advisory Board.
It is only recently that the gruesome act of abortion, including partial birth, has been protected by Law. Ironically, it is also only recently that Science has proven what the Catholic Church knows as Truth, that Life, indeed ,begins at Conception. Defining Life is not a matter of opinion.
If we are to decide that the way to define Life is by whether a mother wants to nurture this Life, all children would be in danger.
on April 24th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“… a Catholic Advisory Board, it’s views must be consistent with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church or it is simply an Advisory Board.”
With all due respect, Nancy there was not an official magisterium until Gregory I where he attempted to build it. The first seven councils were called by emperors and Christians in the fourth century appealed to emperors, who knew nothing of Christianity, to decide question of doctrine. In truth the emperors decided on which fathers of the church you would be quoting today. Further, if you look at the history of the magisterium you will find, if you are honest, that it has changed its mind many times.
Incidentally, do you have any other concerns except this one issue?
on April 24th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Nancy,
While I don’t know exactly what is expected of a Catholic Advisory Board for a presidential candidate, I feel confident in saying it’s not (or not primarily, in any case) to inform the candidate on Catholic dogma.
On the question of when life begins, no one would dispute that we each began when a sperm and an egg united. (Hmmm. Well, actually I would dispute it, since some of us resulted from two sperms fertilizing an egg. But let’s not complicate things.) But the actual question is when does a human person, with rights, come into being. That is a question science can’t answer, since the answer depends almost entirely on the definition of “person,” and defining “person” is not something scientists do.
Actually, it is very difficult to define “life” also. I don’t think science can tell us whether a virus is alive any more than it can tell us whether a fertilized egg is a person, since the question depends on how you define “life” or “alive.”
on April 24th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Gee, I always thought the Catholic dogma on this was that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the giver of life.” At least, that is what I say when I recite the creed.
Doesn’t that mean that life begins when the spirit gets involved? I do not see how that is a question science can settle. Or is it?
on April 25th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Well David, if that is the case, than why refer to the Board as Catholic at all? Regarding your question as to what determines Life, perhaps this will help: A virus is indeed alive although it is not Human Life. In order to be Human Life, one must have the DNA of Human Life.
on April 25th, 2008 at 7:56 am
David,
As to the idea that in a civil society religious values must not be “forced on” other through law, I say nonsense. In any case where some disagree with some legal proscription or requirement for any reason someone’s “values” are being forced on someone else. The idea that those values are “neutral” and therefore legitimate to force on others if they are based on politics, economics, or non-religious ethics while religious values are not has no basis in reason or experience. If one accepts that there is such a thing as a human person with inherent rights (whether God given or not) – a principle upon which modern Western society is based – whether a fetus is a human person or not is a question of fact.
Even if one accepts that there is ambiguity in the evidence, where does that get you? I can make a very strong case that a profoundly disabled infant is not a person if I define what it means to be a person the right way. Is society “forcing its values” on me if it does not permit me to strarngle it in its crib. Moreover, how does a debate over whether a fertilized but unimplanted ovum is a human life lead to a position that a mother has an inherent right to crush the skull of an eight month term fetus? Which is, of course, Sen Obama’s position.
on April 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
The church has usually shown itself to be ineffective when it has pressured the law to uphold its tenets. Rather strange to want to impose the beliefs of a few who cannot convince its own membership to follow them.
Again and again. If we are so preoccupied with the well being of children, which we should be, why are we not using our energy to help those who are eating garbage. Now that is more indisputable than any is it not?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/18food.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
on April 25th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Nancy,
From the Wikipedia entry for Virus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
From a preview to an article in Scientific American:
http://scientificamericandigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=2DE3322F-2B35-221B-6A326123D9FB56EF
on April 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Hmm… perhaps that is what is meant by, ” responds to one’s enviroment” in the definition of a “living ” thing. Just so you know, Human Beings can not replicate on their own either.
on April 25th, 2008 at 8:51 am
With all due repect, Bill, at the Great Commission, Christ instructed Peter and His Disciples to, “Make Disciples of all Nations”.
As Father John Corapi often says, ” The Bible did not merely drop out of the sky; it came to us through the Church”.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC 120 ): “It was by Apostolic Tradition that the Church, through her Magisterium, discerned which writings were inspired and should be included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. There are 46 books that compromise the Old Testament and 27 the New Testament, that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church set before us in what we today call the Bible.”
You may want to google the Vatican Archives for more information on the Fathers of the Catholic Church.
My only concern is Fidelity to Christ and His Church. If you are going to argue that the Magisterium is no longer the teaching authority of the Church, I can only ask you, where did you get that memo?
on April 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Nancy, why is that when you write, “with all due respect” one gets the impression that there is little respect?
Maybe, you want to explain how Augustine got the emperor to employ force to convert the Donatists, something he could not do on his own preaching or proclamation and there was no magisterium then to advise him. But you can remain in your fantasy.
At any rate, for those who want to return to the original intent of this thread, you can read todays op-ed column by Klugman which points out how Obama is not all he is purported to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ref=opinion
on April 25th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Sean,
It appears to me you are declaring separation of church and state and first-amendment freedoms to be nonsensical. I can’t believe you mean it, but it sounds like you are saying that if those in the majority (or those in a minority who know how to manipulate the system effectively) want to make American law conform to their religious beliefs, they are free to do so. It seems to me it is a fundamental tenet of American democracy that for the sake of society in general, and for the sake of each individual religion (and each religious individual) law is essentially secular and does not favor one religion over another.
There can be many valid arguments in favor of legally prohibiting abortion, but the argument that life (personhood) begins at conception because the Catholic Church says so is not one of them. Of course, just because the Catholic Church says something doesn’t make it a religious idea. But maintaining that life (personhood) begins at conception based on the authority of the Catholic Church rather than on rational argument is bringing religion into law in an impermissible manner.
I would say that whether or not a fertilized human ovum or an embryo is a person is a matter of definition and consensus, not a matter of fact. If it were truly a matter of fact, it could be proven. Apparently it seems obviously true to you and some others here, but it is not obviously true to everybody.
It seems to me it is not obvious, also, that every “profoundly disabled” infant or adult is a person with a right to life–babies born with anencephaly, for example, or persons with such extensive brain damage that they can never achieve or regain consciousness.
I don’t know in depth what Obama’s position is on abortion, but I would say that voting against restrictions on abortion does not necessarily indicate that one believes it is an “inherent right” to kill a fetus. One may believe that it is an inherent right to get the best medical advice and make an informed decision under the guidance of a doctor rather than to be subject to blanket rules imposed by legislators.
I think the argument that Michael Sandel makes that nobody really believes life begins at conception is certainly relevant to the stem-cell debate, and perhaps the abortion debate, but I would not say it makes a case for late-term abortions. The argument is that if it were really taken seriously that life (personhood) begins at conception, we would some effort to save those hundreds of millions of lives. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the only people who seem concerned about fertilized eggs failing to implant are cattle breeders. If human lives are actually being lost on a staggering scale, aren’t the lives of people more valuable then the lives of cows?
on April 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Bill, ” all due respect ” is similiar to your use of the term ” gratis asseritur, gratis negatur “, except that it implies , that it is understood , there are some arguments that you have in which I may find that I respectfully agree.
Regarding the intent of this thread, we are all responding to a post titled ” Catholics and Obama “. This post has described the creation of a Catholic Advisory Board. I am simply pointing out the fact that to be Catholic and autonomous is an oxymoron. To be Catholic one must be in communion with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes that the Deposit of Faith Has been handed down from Christ, through His Apostles, to the current Magisterium, through a special Grace of The Holy Spirit. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a Truth of the Catholic Faith.
I have stayed on topic through the entire thread. I would suggest that a change to the Democratic Platform regarding the Sanctity of Life issue as well as respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family would only enhance the current platform. I have also stated a Truth of the Catholic Faith. To be Catholic, one must be in communion with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Like it or not, The Truth is The Truth.
on April 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The pro-life civil rights cause needn’t be fought with religious terminology. Religious belief, IMO, is a powerful but separate basis for constructing a pro-life argument, but Christians need to be prepared to address the issues in a secular context if they hope to have maximum influence in the public square.
Below are links to two persuasive secular voices; the first describes himself as Jewish but not religious, and the second as a “Jewish atheist.”
Dean Barnett of The Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/05/21/im_pro_life_but_not_religious/
Nat Hentoff of The Village Voice:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/hentoff.html (contains links to several of his articles)
on April 25th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
David,
Do I agree with “separation of church and state”? No, in the sense that people now use it. I do heartily endorse the principles of free exercise of religion and the prohibition against the establishment of a religion, which is, of course what the constitution actually says. People who talk about “separation of church and state” most often mean religion or religious belief has absoltuely no place in the public square.
My point is not that government may force religious belief or practice on anyone, that actually violates free exercise and anti-establishment principles. That, however, is not what you are proposing.
Using the abortion example -
In our society
Human persons have rights that are inherent, that is, not based on a grant or decision of society or another person
The right to live, meaning the right of an innocent human person to be free from the sanctioned taking of his or her life by other persons or society at large, is one of those rights
Legitimate government must have, as one of it’s purposes, effecting this right – that is protecting innocent life
Logically a human person must become a human person possessing these rights at some point – temporally
You say, that because my belief that personhood exists at conception is based, even in part, on my Catholic faith, to have it recognized in law, even through legitimate democratic processes, is the imposition of religious beliefs on others. That’s what I say is nonsense.
The abolition of slavery was based, primarliy, on religious belief. As were most of the social reforms of the last two centuries. Were they all illegitimate just because their motivating force was religion?
For the last month our country has been fascinated by the case of a polygamist Mormon sect. Are we imposing our religion on them? The idea of monogomous marriage is fundamentally Judeo-Christian. Is it an illegitimate model?
All facts must not be proven? Were there atoms before we knew they were there or was all matter a combination of Fire, Water, Air, and Earth as the ancients believed. The proposition that all facts must be proven only makes sense if you are omnipotent.
If as you say, personhood is not a fact, but a matter of concensus and opinion, that is a very frightening idea. I hate to tell you, but that’s what the Nazi’s thought. Yeah yeah I know – Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies. But everything from genocide to slavery is justified by defining the other as non-human.
Obama has stated his position that he opposes bans on later term abortion.
Finally, as to your comment, “It seems to me it is not obvious, also, that every “profoundly disabled” infant or adult is a person with a right to life–babies born with anencephaly, for example, or persons with such extensive brain damage that they can never achieve or regain consciousness.” It kind of proves my point. Whether you think it is obvious or not, you would be guilty of murder if you chose to kill such a person. That is, society has protected them by law as human persons. I agree with that protection in part because it comports with my Catholic faith and the teaching of the Magesterium. Is this the imposition of religious belief or practice.
on April 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
David N.–
I hope you don’t mind a few comments and questions about your reply to Sean H.’s post. I don’t have any ulterior motive; I’m just trying to look for common ground if possible.
>>I would say that whether or not a fertilized human ovum or an embryo is a person is a matter of definition and consensus, not a matter of fact.<>It seems to me it is not obvious, also, that every “profoundly disabled” infant or adult is a person with a right to life–babies born with anencephaly, for example, or persons with such extensive brain damage that they can never achieve or regain consciousness.<>The argument is that if it were really taken seriously that life (personhood) begins at conception, we would some effort to save those hundreds of millions of lives. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the only people who seem concerned about fertilized eggs failing to implant are cattle breeders. If human lives are actually being lost on a staggering scale, aren’t the lives of people more valuable then the lives of cows?<<
Here you seem to be equating “life” and “personhood,” but aren’t they two different concepts? The former is a biological concept, and the latter a legal one. IMO, and that’s all it is, it is important to use the two terms carefully in the discussions about abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
You’ve expressed your failure-to-implant argument on other occasions. Let’s assume I agree with you that there are a “staggering” number of fertilized human eggs that fail to implant, is it your argument that because the problem is being largely ignored by society, that lack of concern is justification for also ignoring the welfare of those fertilized eggs that do implant and develop into fetuses? Would society’s general tolerance of, acceptance of, or malaise about slavery in the 1800’s have negated an individual’s moral duty to oppose slavery? I’m not being combative; I’m just trying to draw out the substance of your argument.
Thanks.
on April 25th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Couple of quick points:
-with all the “with all due respect)s)” flying around this thread, I feel like I’m in a Courtroom hearing attorneys argue.
Here it seems like a cloak for civility, but I know better is what’s meant.
-The Sunday before the Pope arrived, our beloved JPII pastor told us there were two sources of faith, Scripture and Magisterium (not Scriupture and Tradition) and that it was our duty as good sheep to follow whatever the Good Shepherd’s Vicar told us.
Some here obviously feel the same but some see that as just being good sheepies.
The issue (except for some like Bill Collier who wants to take a stand analogous to the conscientious objector) is what pragmatic stance to take in votibg to best influence the goals of Faithful Citizenship.
Otherwise I’ll let this interminable argument just go on and on and on….
on April 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Sorry, let me try formatting again.
David N.–
I hope you don’t mind a few comments and questions about your reply to Sean H.’s post. I don’t have any ulterior motive; I’m just trying to look for common ground if possible.
David: “I would say that whether or not a fertilized human ovum or an embryo is a person is a matter of definition and consensus, not a matter of fact.”
I’m assuming you carefully chose the word “person” and that you intend it to signify an entity with constitutional legal protections. Am I correct in assuming that that was what you meant by “definition”? I am also assuming that you are not equating “person” with the phrase “human life.” You would agree, I assume, that “human life” is susceptible to biological interpretation. You and I, and everyone here, has progressed in an unbroken biological continuum from the moment we were fertilized eggs to the biological status we are in at this moment. I know you are human and alive, on my best days I like to think I am, too. We didn’t die or change in our biological DNA formulation at any point along that continuum, so I am assuming that you would agree that “human life” begins at conception, and that what is “human life” is a matter of biological consensus and not the consensus you referenced.
David: “It seems to me it is not obvious, also, that every “profoundly disabled” infant or adult is a person with a right to life–babies born with anencephaly, for example, or persons with such extensive brain damage that they can never achieve or regain consciousness.”
Again, I am assuming that you are using “person” in a legal context. You also used the word “born.” Is it your argument that a profoundly disabled infant or adult does not have a right to life? I hope we can agree that someone who has been “born” is a “person” under the law. If not, is there legal authority you can cite for that argument?
David: “The argument is that if it were really taken seriously that life (personhood) begins at conception, we would some effort to save those hundreds of millions of lives. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the only people who seem concerned about fertilized eggs failing to implant are cattle breeders. If human lives are actually being lost on a staggering scale, aren’t the lives of people more valuable then the lives of cows?”
Here you seem to be equating “life” and “personhood,” but aren’t they two different concepts? The former is a biological concept, and the latter a legal one. IMO, and that’s all it is, it is important to use the two terms carefully in the discussions about abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
You’ve expressed your failure-to-implant argument on other occasions. Let’s assume I agree with you that there are a “staggering” number of fertilized human eggs that fail to implant, is it your argument that because the problem is being largely ignored by society, that lack of concern is justification for also ignoring the welfare of those fertilized eggs that do implant and develop into fetuses? Would society’s general tolerance of, acceptance of, or malaise about slavery in the 1800’s have negated an individual’s moral duty to oppose slavery? I’m not being combative; I’m just trying to draw out the substance of your argument.
Thanks.
on April 25th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Well Nancy. Jesus Christ is truth but you cannot say the same about the hierarchy. Unless we want to look ridiculous. The definition of church is “the gathering.” Or group. We are a gathering for, in and with Jesus. When many bishops sold out the church in the fourth century they altered many Christian ways. The hierarchy has been mainly responsible for that. For 1700 years, too many of the bishops have basically forgotten the lifestyle of Jesus Christ and have chosen the luxury lifestyle which Constantine rewarded them with.
In the fourth century, we see Christians persecuting and killing other Christians for the first time. The main reason was that one group felt everybody should think the way they did. That way continued in the inquisition and in people today who value orthodoxy over orthopraxy.
Jesus Christ is the truth. You cannot say that for many of our leaders. Keep giving them allegiance while they ignore our children and refuse to be accountable to the people.
Christian truth is helping the downtrodden and believing that the meek shall inherit the earth, and justice and mercy. The church has been in Haiti for a long time. Those people don’t have food, never mind the truth. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/18food.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
Ask Benedict to visit Haiti!
on April 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
There seems to be some confusion about anencephaly [brain-lessness], As the Nobelist Peter Medawar pointed out, the term is a misnomer. Apart from the two hemispheres. there is the brain stem, which in the absence of the two hemispheres, may take on many of the functions of the whole brain.
“Although common sense suggests that anencephaly must be accompanied by an abject dimunition of mental capabilities, evidence is growing [1983] that anencephalics are capable of many intellectual powers thought to be the prerogative of the cerebral hemispheres. The faculties of the midbrain must not be underestimated, nor the functional plasticity of the brain” [ARISTOTLE TO ZOOS. 15].
On another occasion, he refers to the case of a 22 year old anencephalic who was a excellent computer programmer.
on April 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Mr. Mazzella,
You really should do more study about the early Church and the development of the Magisterium.
And Mr. Gary Wills’ slim book on Augustine is really not sufficient for an understanding of that great intellect and saint.
Gilson’s THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF ST. AUGUSTINE is a good first book. Gilson very carefully examines Augustine’s great triumph – examining and determining the role of the will in our actions.
And you might try the recent reprint of Fr. Adrian Fortescue’s THE EARLY PAPACY to clear out of your mind the 18th & 19th Century attacks on the period.
on April 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Mr. Mazzella, ( any relation to Father Bill Mazzella? )
My question to the Catholic Advisory Board is this: Will the Board give advice to Mr.Obama on the issues of the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family, that is consistent with the teaching of the Magisterium? If not, they are simply an Advisory Board. I have nothing else to discuss regarding this issue. Peace.
on April 25th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Gabriel,
I have no doubt that you read the books to which you refer. They are about as historical as Cinderella. Gullible gets what gullible wants. If using the emperor to employ force against brother Christians, then you can have that triumph.
Try Peter Brown, Robert Marcus, James O’Donnell, if you are prepared to seriously take on the subject.
Nancy, many of today’s Catholics will challenge the magisterium when they send pedophiles to harm children repeatedly, denigrate women, abuse the people’s contributions, neglect the poor…
You get it. The gospel takes precedence. Peace to you also.
on April 25th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
William,
I would certainly agree that when a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm, what then exists is human and alive. But then again, I would say that human tissue kept alive for decades in labs (as a human cell line) is also human and alive. I think it causes confusion (or begs the question) to call a fertilized human cell “human life,” because “human life” is so often used to mean “human person,” and those who argue against abortion believe they have conclusively proved abortion is murder by saying, “If it is human, and alive, it is a human life, and taking an innocent human life is murder.” It’s not that simple.
I agree that, legally speaking, anyone who is born alive is a person and has a right to life under the law. I am not sure, though, what it can mean to say an individual who can never be conscious in the future has rights, and especially an individual who never was and never will be conscious. What does it mean to have rights in you can never know what rights are, and in fact never know anything at all?
I am very skeptical about the assertion that life, in the sense of personhood, begins at conception. So when I talk about the number of lives being lost because of implantation failure, I am saying, “If personhood really does begin at conception, then the loss of life (or lives) is staggering.”
I think Michael Sandel’s argument (which I agree with and hope I am not misrepresenting) is that the failure of the “pro-life” advocates to take the argument that life begins at conception to its logical conclusions calls into question their belief in that argument. “Suppose a fire broke out in a fertility clinic,” he says, “and you had time to save a five-year-old girl or a tray of twenty frozen embryos. Would it be wrong to save the girl?” He says he has found no one, even among those who claim embryos are human persons with a right to life, who claims they would save the tray of embryos. He asks why opponents of embryonic stem-cell research are not leading a campaign to shut down fertility clinics. And he asks why there is no concern about early embryo loss. I seriously doubt that life (personhood) begins at conception, yet I still find it staggering that up to 80 percent of conceptions die before implantation. So I am amazed and puzzled to discover that apparently those who are absolutely convinced that life begins at conception are utterly indifferent to the whole issue.
The Catholic Catechism says, “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” As I have said before, if 80 percent of babies suddenly began dying within a few days of birth, no amount of money and effort would be too much to try to do something about it. But, if human life (personhood) begins at conception, 80 percent of “people” will die within a few days of coming into existence, and nobody seems to care. I am not saying, by the way, that if nobody cares about the hundreds of millions of embryos that die, then nobody should care about the mere hundreds of thousands of embryos involved in stem-cell research. I am saying that if people really believed life begins at conception, then they would be concerned about all life from the point of conception on. And since they don’t appear to be, I can only wonder if they really do believe life begins at conception.
on April 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Even if the continued discussion here goes on (and on) about abortion or magesterium etc, I’d like to raise the issue of Obama and Catholics in term of what frame of reference do people bring and do they see it as the ONLY frame?
I thought of that after watching Rev. Wright on Bill Moyers last night – I wonder how many folks here watched it?
What’s laughingly refered to as “the best political team” at CNN, including Obama supporters thought Rev. Wright was doing Obama a dissrvice by dredging up all the sound bytes again (tell that to North Carolina Republican leadership.)
I thoughtWright was very interesting in explaining that the Church he leads sees the gospel through the frame of black experience and that he was concerned about “life.”
I suspect media now will harp on the notion that Obama will do his thing as a politician and Wright will do his as a pastor, but i think that seriously understates what the man said.
on April 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Dear Mr. Mazzella,
I see I was not wrong to decide that you derive your information about St. Augustine from such as Garry Wills. Peter Brown’s is certainly an excellent book as history but thin on theology.
I did almost but Provost O’Donnell’s book on Augustine. But then I read the review in the CHRISTIAN CENTURY:
“So we see that the convention of separating theology and history finally
fails. For *O’Donnell* here subjects Augustine to a ferocious
inquisition and judges him worthy of condemnation at every turn.
*O’Donnell’s* own theological commitments clearly guide him in this
endeavor. Unfortunately, they keep him from offering a helpful work of
history. While critics of great thinkers often clarify matters, here
they are badly muddled. We are frequently left wondering why exactly
Augustine opposed the Donatists, or Pelagians, or whomever; when
*O’Donnell* explains, we get more about the arbitrary god or the anxious
self, rather than anything informed by Augustine’s actual thought. This
incessant suspicion collapses as *O’Donnell* pays Augustine so little
respect that he hardly ever bothers to give us Augustine’s ideas in
terms that he himself would recognize.
The problem may be that *O’Donnell* avoids attention to the community
that is the successor to Augustine’s: the Christian Church. For the
billion and a half or so Western Christians, Catholic and Protestant
alike, who are his intellectual heirs, the ideas matter. Our ministers
are trained in Augustine’s ideas about the goodness of marriage and
creation against the Manichees, the universality of the church and the
power of the sacraments against the Donatists, the grace of God against
the Pelagians. That *O’Donnell* finds these ideas unintelligible may
have something to do with his evident distaste for the community that
still tries, by fits and starts, to live them out. “It is impossible for
Augustine’s Christianity to exist any longer,” *O’Donnell* maintains.
(In his day job, by the way, he is Provost of Georgetown University.)
Those of us who demur could help him understand why he is wrong if he
bothered to ask”.
If Gilson is too difficult for you, try Rebecca West’s book on Augustine. She like Dorothy L. Sayers recognized Augustine’s role in promoting education for women – a promotion that lasted through the Middle Ages until killed by the Renaissance and the Reformation which returned women to their Roman status as chattel. .
on April 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I did watch Moyers interviewing Jeremiah Wright. I came in a bit late to the video clip of his speech about “chickens coming home to roost,” given around 9/11. It’s something people didn’t want to hear–although in some ways Susan Sontage said something similar. It takes guts to preach like that when everyone is waiting in terror for the next attack. How many of us heard anything like it the Sunday following?
That said, I thought Wright was compelling and Moyers pretty good too. It is instructive to remember as Moyers reminds us that he and Wright are members of the UCC, probably the most liberal Christian denomination in the U.S. The media is generally unable to imagine the relationship between pastor and congregant, and they will certainly have a hard time with Wrigt and Obama. So was it better or worse for Moyers to take it on, and for Wright to do it? Risky but instructive to those of us who are not members of the UCC and who do not regularly attend African-American worship service.
on April 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“I did almost but Provost O’Donnell’s book on Augustine.”
Quite difficult to discuss when a person has not read the book, yet has the audacity to criticize it. Here are some other reviews on O’Donnell’s amazing biography for those who desire to take it seriously.
Review by Thomas Williams http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=8703
Also from Commonweal http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=8703
Here is a review on O’Donnell and Wills http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-133108511.html
Two others
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-142058631.html
http://www.powells.com/review/2005_07_14.html
on April 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Margaret,
Your reaction to Rev Wright demonstrates why many, including me, are beginning to think Obama probably can’t win.
Your reaction to the “chickens coming home to roost” comment pretty typical of what I hear from Obama supporters. The only reason he may be taken to task is because of poor timing, but fundamentally he was right. Indeed, you seem to think he was courageous. You are entitled to your opinion of course, and I know it is held by many, but it is so completely out of sync with what most Americans believe, that if Obama thinks he can win with a base that agrees with this point of view, he is in for a disappointing November.
The reason most of us didn’t hear this sort of thing from the pulpit was not because people were afraid to say it, but because it is based on the shockingly warped view of America that only the most extreme left holds. Most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, see the US as a basically decent society. The idea that we somehow deserved 9/11 or even that it was an understandable response to American behavior is simply not true. Has the US made mistakes in dealing with the Muslim world? Certainly. But think about this. The US has saved more Muslim lives than any other country in the last two decades. Whether it is Kuwaitis being brutalized, or Saudis being threatened by their neighbors, Bosnians and Kosovars in the killing fields of Yugoslavia, earthquake victims in Turkey and Iran, or starving children in Somalia, we have saved tens of thousands.
That is the America most Americans see, not the warped one the blame America first crowd favors.
on April 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Sean,
Do you really think Obama himself is one of the “blame America first crowd”? Do you think he believes the United States deserved the 9/11 attack? I certainly don’t think so. But I have grown tired of discussing the Jeremiah Wright matter. Let’s talk about what the Catholic Church teaches.
May I ask if you would be willing to vote for a candidate for president who agreed with the current or previous Pope or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on American foreign policy? If we may accept Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and the USCCB as speaking for the Catholic Church, then the Church has been opposed to the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and is pretty much opposed to any war.
Would you vote for a candidate for president who agreed with the USCCB’s analysis of nuclear deterrence? Considering that popes and bishops have much more authority over faithful Catholics than Jeremiah Wright had over Barack Obama, could you risk voting for a Catholic for president?
Would you agree with what Pope John Paul II said about the Gulf War (see below)? Is it in conformity with what most Americans believe?
I am not arguing that Catholics are obliged to accept what the Church says on matters of war and foreign policy. I am just pointing out that it is far removed with what the average American accepts and would be comfortable with in a presidential candidate, and that Catholics are obliged to at least consider what the Church says much more seriously than Obama is obliged to consider what Jeremiah Wright says.
on April 27th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
On the SCOTUS question, Scalia was very interesting on 60 Minutes this evening. I wonder how the right will react to his claims regarding Rode v. Wade as constitutional law and the whole question of the “personhood” of the fetus. Do other Catholics on the court think as he does?
on April 27th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I doubt that anyone was encouraged, even by liberals (most at least) who said that the “chickens were coming home to roost.” Falwell and Robertson were profoundly criticized when they essentially said the same thing. Neither Sontag nor any liberal agreed with that famous duo as far as I know.
I believe we need much more sensitivity with regard to all the Iraqis who are dying in this utterly maladroit war. Yet it is wholly insulting to the three thousand plus people who were killed or injured on and after 9/11. It shows a lack of sensitivity that liberals rightly. accuse the hawks of having.
No question Wright and Obama have other redeeming qualities. Their stubbornness on this issue is clearly deplorable, no matter how one slices it.
on April 28th, 2008 at 8:10 am
In our neighborhood right after 9/11–about 5 miles north of the Twin Towers–little post-its appeared all over the place saying: “Not in our Name.” This was a few weeks, perhaps three or four after, as Bush & Co. were gearing up to go into Afghanistan. So people who had seen it first-hand, some of whom may have been caught in the clouds of debris, had to contemplate the thought that maybe we were merging with a cycle of violence that could be enduring. If the attack on Afghanistan was justified, and I think it was, the one on Iraq was not. And today there is the constant backdrop talk of Iran. Why won’t we allow Iraqi refugees into the U.S. Too many chickens to watch?
The theme of “chickens coming home to roost,” however the right or the left interpret it, has a common sense point: violence begets violence. That’s what I took Jeremiah Wright to be saying. Rather than an ideological point, it seems like an obvious fact of life–at least at this point in our globalized national history. Is it possible that Reverend Wright, a Chicago South Side pastor and an African-American, understands that better than Fallwell, Roberts, or Sontag? Apparently there were a couple more parts of the Moyers-Wright exchange that I haven’t seen. They’re posted in various places.
Sean Hannaway: Most of us didn’t hear this from our pulpits because like the rest of us most clergy were genuinely shocked by 9/11 and because like most American they don’t know diddleysquat about the rest of the world and how the U.S. has and can (sometimes) operates in the rest of the world. Being a universal Church, Catholics may have a better chance than most to know about that (El Salvador, etc.) but I am not sure that we take full advantage of those connections. I will say for our parish and pastor (who lost a nephew at the WTC) there was not talk of “roosting chickens,” but there was pretty strong talk against taking revenge.
on April 28th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Peggy,
You are right, of course, that violence begets violence and that the US has behaved badly in many ways while doing a lot of good also. And the revenge thrust was wrong. At the same time, the association with 9/11 as payback was, at the very least, bad communication. Yes we have to do better in the Middle East and just not cater to the politically powerful. But why inflame matters with “Chickens coming home to roost” especially after three thousand plus were burnt alive with hundreds jumping out 100 stories above. It is like telling the victims their massacre was justified. Remember we are not talking about logic here.
Here is something we might do something about. A Muslim teacher behttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/nyregion/28school.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogining fired for building up her community. A despicable action by some uncivilized Americans.
on April 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
David,
I honestly don’t know what Obama thinks since he has been so adroit at walking a line that tries to keep his support by the far left and still appeal to Middle America. I predict he won’t be able to do that too much longer with effect, if for no other reason than his opponents won’t let him. Even if he doesn’t believe these things himself, I think he is so beholden to those that that do that it makes me uncomfortable.
As you point out, I am not bound in conscience by the statements of the USCCB regarding war and foreign policy, and the pope himself has said as much regarding his and other bishops’ statements. I am obliged to listen to them and consider them, and make my own judgments. Do I agree with John Paul II’s statement? In some respects yes, and in others no. It is interesting that you say, “the Church has been opposed to the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and is pretty much opposed to any war.” First, I would take issue with your statement that “the Church” took such positions in any sense of an official teaching. But I do think you are correct in your statement that many in the Church, and many bishops are “pretty much opposed to any war.” This troubles me because I think it is true and has been a trend since Benedict XV. I understand the reasons for it, but it worries me because unlike others, I believe there is real evil that sometimes must be opposed. Remember, the bishops’ semi-pacifist leanings didn’t just happen in the last three decades, they were around even in WWII. It is interesting that many of the same liberals who praise the bishops when they condemn the use of American arms also criticize the historical Church for its inaction in the face of fascism. I had the opportunity to serve in southern Europe and the Balkans during the last decade, and I believe without any doubt that without the force of arms, and in particular American arms, the wholesale rape, mayhem, and slaughter of innocents would have continued unabated. Sometimes, doing nothing is wrong.
I can say with confidence that I consider the statements of the Pope and my bishop on these matters and give them the influence and weight and take positions that they themselves tell me I can. Can the members of Obama’s advisory committee say the same?
Margaret,
You talk of being aware of the rest of the world. Are you aware of what Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of Hamas say? What their plans are? It is not about revenge but about taking them at their word. Do you simply not believe them? Is it just rhetoric because of their anger at US foreign policy? Will they all just go home and play nice if we leave Iraq?
on April 28th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Sean,
Is that the best response you can muster? Are you aware of Bin Laden’s plans? Are you aware of how silly that sounds? Always amusing when people who were at a safe distance on 9/11 preach to those of us who breathed in the dead.
on April 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sean: I said many Americans, including clergy, don’t pay much attention to the rest of the world as in interesting themselves in the elections, GDP, chief exports and imports, etc. of other countries. I did not make any claim about my own knowledge, thought I try to keep up.
But to answer directly, I do know, more or less what Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of Hamas say–or at least what they are reported to say by Western media. I also try to keep track of what the Bush Administration says about them; what Israelis are saying (Ha’aretz) is available in English on line as is the Jerusalem Post. I watch the French News to see what the crowd is saying (at the moment, it’s mostly about food prices).
I am currently reading “The Bin Ladens” by Stephen Coll as well as Patrick Cockburn’s detailed account of Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Al Sadr family.
Do I believe what I read? Do I believe what any of these politicos say? Well, I triangulate. And to be honest (I know you wouldn’t settle for anything less), the Bush Administration doesn’t come off much better than your list of our enemies.
on April 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
First, bravo to Peg Steinfels for her incisive commentary about violence and the Iraq war (and, I’ll mention the Rev. Wright word he used “vengeance”, i.e. on the innocent.)
I also thought his talk (repeated twice on CNN last night) about respecting difference while unifying was important – especilly given the NAACP audience that invited him.
Many will only listen to the sound bytes and maybe he’s “hurting” Obama, but the message is one that desrves to be heard in full and. yes, by us Catholics too.
on April 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Grant,
Please, don’t play the “safe distance” card on me. I have served my country for more than two decades, and I now have two sons who are doing the same. You will pardon me if I am not impressed by proximity based moral high ground.
What I find silly, and indeed insulting, is that even knowing that these people mean what they say, opponents of taking military action accuse others of wanting only vengence. That is a moral cheap shot. That was the point of my rhetorical question.
on April 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Sean,
I’m not interested in what impresses you. Nearly seven years after 9/11, I’ve simply grown weary of receiving instruction from right-wingers on how to best interpret the threat of Al Qaeda.
More to the point: Who has opposed taking military action? Who said anything about “only” vengeance? (Those are not rhetorical questions.) Before you cry foul, you need to revise your presentation of your interlocutors’ viewpoints. Or at least don’t treat them like idiots.
on April 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Grant,
I treated no one like an idiot. I simply point out that there are people who intend to do our nation harm and who mean what they say. If you believe they intend what the say, then please tell me what we ought to do about it, don’t simply criticize those who are trying to do something about it. What is the alternative?
Just as you are not interested in what impresses me, I am not interested in what wearies you. I simply believe your comment was uncalled for. The country is in a world of hurt if only the opinions of people in Manhattan count.
on April 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
By the same token, Sean, the world is in a world of hurt if only the opinions of Americans count. The best description of Catholic is that it is universal. As gruesome as 9/11 was it cannot compare to the five million children who do not make it to the age of five every year because of basic lack of food and medicine. And all those adults throughout the world eating garbage.
on April 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
By the same token, Sean, the world is in a world of hurt if only the opinions of Americans count. The best description of Catholic is that it is universal. As gruesome as 9/11 was it cannot compare to the five million children who do not make it to the age of five every year because of basic lack of food and medicine. And all those adults throughout the world eating garbage.