Catholic conundrum: Conservatives like Obama
Obama’s choice of Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius to be HHS secretary was long-rumored after Tom Daschle’s withdrawal. But now that it’s a fact it is likely to set off another round of the Catholic Culture Wars, since Sebelius is a practicing Catholic (as best she can, I suppose, as her archbishop barred her from communion) and supports abortion rights.
National Catholic Reporter has an article on 26 prominent Catholics who have signed a letter in support of Sebelius–including Commonweal’s own Margaret O’Brien Steinfels. The signers point to Sebelius’ support for universal health care (where she has serious chops) and her “successful efforts at reducing abortion in Kansas.” They also note that abortions in Kansas declined by 10 percent during her time as governor. Among other things, Sebelius:
–Signed the Senator Stan Clark Pregnancy Maintenance Initiative Program, a bill which funded support services for pregnant women and alternatives to abortion;
–Signed Alexa’s Law, to deal with certain crimes against unborn children, which defines an unborn child as a fetus at any state of gestation from fertilization to birth. As a result, if a pregnant woman was murdered, the offender could be charged with the murder of the unborn child as well;
–Signed a law doubling the adoption tax credit and oversaw an expansion of adoption support spending in Kansas from $17,566,288 in 2003 to a projected $23,279,623 in 2008;
–And oversaw a decline in teen pregnancies between 2002 and 2007.
So what’s not to like? Well, Bill Donohue at the Catholic League finds plenty. His statement is likely representative of many pro-life groups: “As I said last night on the CBS Evening News, ‘She is the champion of abortion rights right through term, and for Obama to choose somebody who sews such division within the Catholic community to head HHS really is an insult to Catholics.’ ”
Donohue says of Obama and the Catholic vote: the Sebelius pick “will cost him.” But will it?
John Green’s article on the 2008 vote in the March First Things, “What Happened to the Values Voter?” includes the surprising revelation (to me) that Obama “did better with the Traditionalists than with the Centrist Catholics [Green's longstanding labels, which of course have other unfortunate resonances intra ecclesia] and markedly better than Kerry’s one-fifth in 2004.”
“This result is a surprise,” Green writes, “being the only instance where a group of Traditionalists voted more Democratic than their Centrist coreligionists” in other faith groups.
That’s weird. Green suspects that conservative Catholic opposition to the Iraq War and torture and such may have been factors, and notes that “Centrist” Catholics can be more conservative economically. That doesn’t seem sufficient to explain this puzzle, to me, and I think Mark Silk’s analysis may be more on target:
Let me offer, instead, the hypothesis that the swing towards Obama among Traditionalist Catholics had less to do with the circumstances of the 2008 election than with their antipathy to voting for a pro-choice Catholic in 2004. In fact, this voting bloc swung heavily away from the Democratic candidate (to the tune of 17 points) between 2000 and 2004. So in November they more or less reverted to their 2000 voting pattern.
If I’m right and Traditionalist Catholics have more of a problem voting for a pro-choice Catholic than a pro-choice non-Catholic, that’s both good and bad news for conservative Catholic hierarchs and intellectuals. On the one hand, it suggests that the message that Catholic politicians should be pro-life (delivered delicately if unmistakably by the pope to Speaker Pelosi yesterday) has definitely gotten through to the old-time faithful. On the other, it indicates that such Catholics understand this to be less a natural law injunction incumbent on all members of society than a religious obligation for their own kind. That a staunch pro-choicer like Obama can garner two out of every five Traditionalist White Catholic votes helps makes sense of the high pro-life anxiety that seems to have taken hold in so many episcopal breasts.
Thoughts?
Thought One: Did Donohue really say “sews such division”? Because isn’t “sewing” division sorta the opposite of what I presume Donohue meant, which was “sow” division?
Thought Two: Can lower abortion rates be linked back to the measures Sebelius supported? Does serving during a time of reduced abortions mean she was instrumental in reducing them? Is having lower abortion rates a step forward if some abortions are still legal and freely available? My guess is that the answers to those questions will be raised and answered with a big “no” by Sebelius’ detractors. Waiting now for Sean Hannaway to weigh in.
Thought Three: I think Green is correct in believing that some Catholics hold Catholic politicians to more stringent standards when it comes to enmeshing church teaching (translate sanctity of heterosexual marriage and a total ban on abortion) into secular law. If Sebelius were a Unitarian, my guess is that Donohue and other like minded Catholics would be encouraging and supportive.
Jean — had the same thought re: “sews.” Too bad he quoted himself in print; he would have gotten away with it out loud!
…such Catholics understand this to be less a natural law injunction incumbent on all members of society than a religious obligation for their own kind.
I’ve wondered about this dynamic myself. All the extra pressure on Catholic politicians can make it seem like we oppose abortion because we’re Catholic, rather than because it’s wrong (which our Catholic faith helps us to realize). Which in turn makes the prolife case easier to dismiss with the old “don’t impose your views on me” retort.
Answer One: Bill actually leads sewing bees for New York Catholics. They do amazing work.
What possible evidence is there that anything Gov Sebelius has done has caused a reduction in the abortion rate in Kansas? First, the reduction in abortion rate for her state are barely better than the national average. Second, abortion rate reductions for white women vs. black and hispanic women have been above the average and Kansas is among the whitest states in the country with more than 80% of the population vs. less than 70% for the nation at large. If anything, it would be noteworthy if rates hadn’t reduced in Kansas at this rate.
Thought One: As a result of Alexa’s Law, how can the Unborn NOT be protected from the act of abortion?
Sean: If that is the case, why would conservatives (like you, if I can judge by your previous comments) support Obama at proportionally higher rates than other groups?
“Donohue says of Obama and the Catholic vote: the Sebelius pick ‘will cost him’. But will it?”
It depends on how you define “Catholic”.
“Thought Two: Can lower abortion rates be linked back to the measures Sebelius supported? Does serving during a time of reduced abortions mean she was instrumental in reducing them? Is having lower abortion rates a step forward if some abortions are still legal and freely available? My guess is that the answers to those questions will be raised and answered with a big “no” by Sebelius’ detractors. Waiting now for Sean Hannaway to weigh in.”
Jean, reading your comment, it made me realize that Governor Sibelius is Exhibit A for the argument put forth by Cathleen Kaveny, as well as Professors Cafardi and Kmiec, during the last election. Apparently she has already gone down the road of using healthcare and social programs to reduce abortion, while continuing to support the right to choose.
Thought One: As a result of Alexa’s Law, how can the Unborn NOT be protected from the act of abortion?
Nancy,
Because Alexa’s Law, like similar laws in 35 other states, specifically excludes abortion. Laws that impose penalties for harming or killing fetuses do so when there is an attack on the mother that also harms the fetus.
Alexa’s Law does not punish abortion nor does it punish any harm done to the fetus by the mother.
David,
Sorry – I don’t get the question. If what is the case?
In any event, even if you accept these statistics – I am not sure I do – then “traditionalist” Catholics (whatever that was defined as) still opposed him at about a 2 to 1 ratio. I am not sure I buy the stats for a number of reasons – chief of which was the statisic I saw at election time that support for Obama among Catholics was closely, and inversely, related to mass attendance with daily communicants overwhelmingly against him – somewhere north of 80%.
What disturbs me is this growing trend of pro-life lite as the way to get around the this issue politically with absolutely no evidence that it even works. The fact is that while Sebelius refused to take money from insurance companies while she was insurance commissioner, she took thousands upon thousands from abortionists and their supporters for all of her elections. Trying to paint her as “pro-life” because she supported some predominatly Republican laws, and warmed the seat of the governor’s mansion during a time when abortion rates were declining nationwide is nothing but cynical partisanship.
“Sean: If that is the case, why would conservatives (like you, if I can judge by your previous comments) support Obama at proportionally higher rates than other groups?”
I believe that it’s easy to underestimate conservative animosity toward John McCain. They’ve loathed him for years. Perhaps this is another expression of holding one’s own to higher standards. Just speaking anecdotally, I knew a number of conservative voters who went into the fall – long before the economy tanked – with an anyone-but-McCain attitude. I know others who sat out the election rather than vote for either candidate.
Jim,
Aside from the post hoc reasoning – what evidence is there that anything she did worked? She only claims a rate reduction that is .9% higher (her administration didn’t claim 10% – it was less) than the national average in a state that is whiter and older (both of which correlate to lower rates and faster reductions) than many states with almost the same reductions.
It is an example of something, and that is using numbers that can’t prove anything to your political advantage. I am waiting to see how they quantify “saving or creating” 3.5 million jobs.
I agree, Sean. If Governor Sibelius can claim credit for reducing abortions in Kansas, then surely President GW Bush can do the same for the country as a whole.
(kon’shens) n., con-scienta, “with knowledge”
Our leader’s such a wiz, a marvel, so full
of good intentions it leaves us giddy.
Seems like ages since speeches so pretty
have pulled our willing eyes beneath the wool.
This worldly leader – our stateside Caesar -
does not see eye to eye with unblinking Rome.
But we’re so over dogma we don’t, either.
The pope is denser than a garden gnome!
With novel readings we have re-mapped truth
to follow without guilt our furor’s banner.
And we will ruin lives in spite of ruth,
with knowledge, yet mindless, as is our manner,
of the day we must reckon the blessings lost
for blessing this Godless blood holocaust.
I wonder if people realize how surreal the conversation of means sounds to people who are completely committed to the dignity of each of these little lives.
The current endorsement sounds to me like there’s this cop who winks at deadly malice every day on his beat, but somehow makes up for it by shovelling coal. Or there’s this teacher who lets half the kids get bullied, but is, after all, an excellent teacher.
“Because Alex’s Law, like similiar laws in 35 other States, specifically excludes abortion…”
David, you have a Law which defines a Fetus as an Unborn Child ONLY when there is an attack on the Mother that harms the Fetus? How can the definition of the Unborn depend on whether an attack occurs to the Mother that harms the Fetus? Every Fetus is an Unborn Child.
I wonder if people realize how surreal the conversation of means sounds to people who are completely committed to the dignity of each of these little lives.
I think of this now and then, and I try to explain to my friends who scoff at the Catholic position, but of course the whole abortion debate (and even more so the debate about stem cells) sounds at least as surreal to people who do not believe that a fertilized egg is automatically a person.
And for those who oppose abortion but believe that it is like bashing your head against a brick wall to try outlawing it in the United States, what approach do you expect them to take except to try to make sure there “will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion”?
I have a friend who claims (far from originally) that the whole fight against abortion is actually about trying to control women. I argue against that, but with the scant attention paid to stem-cell research or early embryo loss, and the absence of real emotion over them, I do sometimes wonder.
David, you have a Law which defines a Fetus as an Unborn Child ONLY when there is an attack on the Mother that harms the Fetus? How can the definition of the Unborn depend on whether an attack occurs to the Mother that harms the Fetus? Every Fetus is an Unborn Child.
Nancy,
I did not bring up the law. I did not write it. The majority of states have laws similar to Alexa’s Law, as does the federal government (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004), and that’s how they all work.
Now, Exodus 21 famously says
When there is a miscarriage, it is treated as the loss of property, as long as the mother is not hurt. If the mother is hurt, then it’s treated as an injury to a person.
David,
Lost early embryos are not killed–they are lost. Often they are grieved; often they are unknowable. But we have limited power to change this medical occrrence.
Killing, however, is a human act and it is actually difficult to do. People have to consider, how am I going to make this happen? A doctor’s biggest fear is that it won’t happen quite as planned. But human beings are able to make things happen in this world. It is countenanced, promoted!, within the human community, in the most “advanced” civilizations on the earth.
Such madness!!
The Catholic League is hardly the only, or a representative, voice opposing Sebelius becasue of her alignment with the highest levels of the late-term abortion industry.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30903
If a person like this is acceptable to pro-life Catholics and in their view she is living her faith “as best she can,” then there is no content to what it means to be a pro-life Catholic because it includes polar opposite views on this fundamental issue.
David wrote …
“I have a friend who claims (far from originally) that the whole fight against abortion is actually about trying to control women. I argue against that, but with the scant attention paid to stem-cell research or early embryo loss, and the absence of real emotion over them, I do sometimes wonder.”
I come close to feeling the way your friend does. Sebelius is pro-choice …. choice. But she’s characterized here as pro-abortion, in league with the “abortion industry” as one comment put it. What exactly is the abotion industry? Why is it so hard to imagine that a Catholic might care about women’s rights enough to be against criminalizing abortion, yet still not be an advocate of abortion.
The abortion industry is a for-profit conglomerate of about 1000 clinics, national and multinational organizations, and government officials who make billions of dollars off of killing unborn children. The king of that industry is George Tiller, who will and does kill any unborn healthy child of a healthy woman up to the end of the ninth month of pregnancy. Tiller’s facility is in Wicheta Kansas, from which the smoke of babies’ bodies rises daily. Sebelius is a die-hard advocate for Planned Parenthood and Tiller, who vetoed informed consent and restirctions on partial birth abortion and multiple other mild pro-life restrictions that don’t come anywhere near to criminalizing women–things that are extreme only to an abortion extremist. Calling her a moderate does not pass the laugh test. When Catholics call her that, they are plainly betraying the unborn and being apologists for their political party rather than for their stated principles.
It is understandable that a Catholic would be sympathetic to the cherry positive terms in which the abortion industry and the media describe abortion. When you get past the surface and examine what happens in an abortion and what Christians have always said about it, it is not possible to call it Catholic to tolerate the legal or societal acceptance of abortion.
Silk may be right that traditional Catholics view their opposion to abortion to be dictated by a purely Catholic obligation rather than mandated by natural law.
Is it also the case that the progressive Catholics for Sebelius likewise view abortion not as a violation of natural law but to be condemned only as a matter of faith? They apparently believe that the number of abortions should be reduced but I wonder if any of them make a strong natural law argument to that effect.
It is pure madness to support a monarchichal structure of bishops which has expensive chanceries and cathedrals to supposedly represent someone who had no, home nor goods and who was disgracefully crucified.
Ditto for a Vatican which acts like a head of state, processes millions of dollars, charges and promotes papal audience and all kinds of profitable medals and souvenirs.
That is the madness, denying a crucified Lord.
They are soaked to death in brine, for pity’s sake!
“Traditionalist Catholics have more of a problem voting for a pro-choice Catholic than a pro-choice non-Catholic . . . ”
This isn’t all that surprising to me. It seems to me that conservatives of all kinds are people who tend to follow a leader rather than attempt to formulate their own views of the world/reality/whatever. In other words, they rely on authorities more heavily than others do. When one of their own leaders betrays the mores/beliefs/traditions of their own group their attitude is more punitive towards him than towards an outsider with the same views.
It’s the same mindset, I think, that inspires highly conservative Catholics to call Pope JP II John Paul the Great, even though history probably will not be that kind to him. In other words, these are people who really, really need heroes.
“To whom much has been given, much is expected.”
Ann, first of all, your characterization of conservatives is demonizing and frankly cartoonish.
Secondly, I doubt that there are a lot of Catholic conservatives who look upon Sebelius, Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, or any other Emily’s List types as their leaders. These are people who’ve won votes from Catholics duped by the bad rhetoric of their would-be leaders and the inactivity of their actual leaders–and the whole process has been funded by the abortion lobby.
I think it’s high time for another March on Washington.
After reading the comments about consrevatives I would never give you my opinion as it would not be respected. I will give the opinoins of non-believers. They ask me how can a Catholic be prochoice when the Church teaches pro-life? To these folks this seems that there is not anything important being a Christian because folks don’t stand for some they fall for anything! They laugh and believe like pro-choicers instead and figure they don’t need to believe in Jesus because we all don’t live what is taught. They will get to heaven just on being a “good” person. So think about it… what we live, say and do does make a difference if you choose to!
So there is no agreement on the best way to reduce abortions. Somehow I think we settled that a gazillion posts ago.
But regarding the point in question–why the most “conservative” Catholics went for Obama in greater numbers than Kerry or moderate Catholics–I wonder if another element (I think Silk’s point is the strongest one) may be the tendency, counterinitutive to most, of many “conservative” Catholics to embrace a much more “liberal” view of economics, as embodied in Catholic social justice teaching. I admire such Catholics–I always like category-busters–and I have met not a few of those types.
Other point: “Pro-life” Senators Sam Brownback (Catholic) and Pat Roberts (not) have given their support to Sebelius. What of them?
David Gibson: I think you left out the quote from Mr, Donohue’s press release which would best answer the question: ““Catholics do not expect that abortion-rights presidents will go out of their way to choose pro-life Catholics to be in their administration. But they also don’t expect them to go out of their way to offend them.”
There are plenty of people out there who are just as much abortion absolutists as Governor Sebelius who could have been chosen. The Governor was chosen exactly because she was a “practicing” Catholic, not despite. She, along with the assistance of Catholics United, are part of Mr. Axlerod’s very deliberate attempt to change the conversation on abortion to a more post-modern footing. In order to do that, these self-identifying “practicing” or “devout” Catholics are very important in order to make these same ignoratio elenchi arguments which Catholics United are making. I mean what possible reason could Catholics United have for not only making the statement they did but including fallacious material such as the following: “Kathleen Sebelius has made clear that she agrees with church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.” I don’t think it is honest to say someone is living and acting on the belief that abortion is a grave moral evil when they resist virtually every legislative attempt to reduce the number of abortions, including late-term abortions, with vetoes stretching back to 2003. The Washington Post on February 25, 2009 even quotes the Governor asserting that there are no legal restrictions which may be placed on any abortion procedure.
Kathy –
Sorry you think I’m demonizing all conservatives. i don’t mean to. But it is true that in my experience conservatives seem motivated to accept certain principles not because they have reasoned to themselves but because leaders whom they trust tell them that is the best thinking. Of course, sometimes it is reasonable to simply accept the authority of someone who in fact is more informed or wiser than we are, but I don’t call that conservatism. Further, I said they ‘tend to” behave like that.
As I remember many conservative Catholics gave their support to JFK because he was one of them, Catholic. I daresay they’d have done the same with Kerry had he not been pro-choice.
Ann, sometimes I get the impression that many liberals are motivated primarily by unresolved adolescent rebellion, but I don’t say it. (Oops!) Anyways, apology accepted.
David, perhaps for you the question of whether we ought to just agree to disagree on the morality of abortion reduction methods was settled a gazillion posts ago, but you’re presuming too much. There is no agreement between the signers of the declaration, or whatever it was, with pro-life Catholics on the meta-question of whether a diversity of opinion is possible on the issue of cooperation with direct killing of the innocent. The ENTIRE moral Tradition of the Catholic Church says no. These same 26 liberal intellectuals have been saying yes so loudly that Catholic voters are suspended in invincible ignorance.
Look, when you see a child being held above a pot of boiling water by her mother, who is out of her mind with worry, the first thing you do is save the baby. The second thing you do is provide real help and support to the mother. 1) You don’t have to choose between those steps, and 2) You handle them in the right order.
How many abortions did Kathleen Sebelius willingly countenance and actively aid while she was Governor?
More conservative Catholics went for Obama this time for a couple of reasons. One was the economic crash. I think Catholics do tend to be more open to liberal economics, which fine. In the other hand, I think choosing Obama b/c of the economy wasn’t a thoughtful decision about adopting a specific plan–it was just a “throw out who we think is in charge because it must be their fault” decision. The economy has tanked under Obama, it probably would have under McCain.
The other reason is that conservative Catholics had their guard let down because Obama successfully sold them on the idea that he is not extremist on abortion. That idea is false, as proven by the Sebelius pick and so many other extreme appointments and things he has done so far (like revoking conscience protections). Obama had the important help of liberal Catholics who call themselves pro-life and sell Obama’s line. For example, MAT is exactly right about lines like this:
“Kathleen Sebelius has made clear that she agrees with church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.” I don’t think it is honest to say someone is living and acting on the belief that abortion is a grave moral evil when they resist virtually every legislative attempt to reduce the number of abortions, including late-term abortions, with vetoes stretching back to 2003.
Kathy, I think another March on Washington is a great idea.
“The ENTIRE moral tradition of the Catholic church says No.” The inaccuracy of that statement boogles the mind.
George Weigel has written a stronger brief against Sebelius than anything referenced here so far.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1325
At the risk of being boring, I repeat that last Thursday I visited our State Legislature to lobby for senior issues.
At stake were several million dollars in Medicaid cuts and almost a mill in meals for the homebound or assiatnce to them in transporting to vital services. This in one of the poorest states in the Union. At the same time that day, the legislature killed a domestic partnership bill under heavy pressure from the State Catholic Conference.
My Church bulletin Saturday night told us to focus on moral issues in the State Legislature: domestic partnership (killed) FIOCA (Not sure there is any such), stem cerll research (going nowhere despite support from Gov. Richardson) and (hooray) repeal of the death penalty -which has a 50-50 chance to pass.
Sunday Morning brought the times and Nicholas Kristof”s superb cry for reform of health care; I only note here that he notes that children under 5 in this country are twice as likely tro die as children in Spain, Portugal or Slovnia. I guess it’s gotta be among the worst in my state.
After that (pace Kathy) I saw all those fresh faces on line at the Conservative PAC convention in Washington, worshipping at the altar of Rush and Iwondered how many had lost jobs or had health care problems. As a generalization, It does seem to me that the poltical conservative view is grounded in a “I got mine” approach that then argues (ala CATO and American Enterprise) that folks know best what to do with their money.
So as I look at this thread and a lot of the uusal folks weighing in, all I see is the same old division we’ve had in abortion discussion.
The divide, I think it’s clear, is one of perspective on how to bring the Gospel into a public square that seeks values but wants to move ahead and values compromise.
I think folk like Frs. Hollenbach and Matta for example are not lightweights and are bringing a perspective quite different from those who want the Church view enshrined in law, even if not possible.
What’s further problematic (as in gay union/defense of marriage arguments ) is the virulence and at times self rightousness displayed in argumentation.
So I fear there will be Catholics who will demonize Ms. Sibelius as they do other Catholic politicvians and be abetted by some hierachy but do little to help move the issues along and instead present on one side a perceived myopic view of the life value discussion.
I realize the days of Bernadin are long past and the discussuons here make me think that common ground is becoming more and more just a phrase.
Just another of the many divides across the Church…..
George Weigel has written a stronger brief against Sebelius than anything referenced here so far.
Weigel says: And then, of course, there is Gov. Sebelius’ relationship with George Tiller, a notorious late-term abortionist who was entertained at the Kansas gubernatorial manse in 2007 and was photographed with the governor while holding a Sebelius campaign t-shirt.
Tiller won the invitation to attend a political event hosted by Sebelius at an auction. I can’t believe Weigel didn’t know that. Sebelius didn’t throw a party to honor Tiller.
Give George a break – he is still recovering from his LC/RC embarrassment. He needs to find another issue so he looks correct.
David G.,
You say – So there is no agreement on the best way to reduce abortions. Somehow I think we settled that a gazillion posts ago.
That’s the whole point. By isolating the discussion to “what reduces abortions” you inevitably go nowhere, and you run into this problem.
As Catholics we have an obligation to promote a society and an environment that is supportive of families, mothers, and children. I even agree that the incidence of abortion is probably less in such an environment. These are things we can (in fact ought to) all agree on, what we disagree about is not the what but the how. That’s ok. We will disagree.
That’s why the whole common good movement is a faux pro-life. Go ahead and supprt these efforts, but don’t claim they are some how “pro-life.” You don’t know that. Even if they did reduce abortion incidence, you have no idea whether some other policy or approach that you opposed might not do it even better.
Direct opposition to abortion in contrast is not just about “reducing the number of abortions,’ it’s about recognizing the dignity of life. How can you say you support mothers when you support a policy that treats motherhood as a thing to fear a burden to avoid? How can a society say it values children when it treats them as disposable? Spending all the money in the world can’t overcome this spiritual bankruptcy.
Saying “Kathleen Sebelius has made clear that she agrees with church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief” is kind of like a pimp saying he thinks prostitution is wrong and he lives and acts according to that belief because he’s not a prostitute himself.
David N.,
First – he didn’t “win” it in an auction, he paid for it in an auction that her campaign ran.
Second, he was and is famous in Kansas. She knew exactly who he was and all the controversey surrounding him. She had already taken thousands of dollars from him and his associates. So it’s not like he just showed up
Seems to me she does have a relationship with him. No one forced her to take his money. It seems to me that if she really lives and practices what the Church teaches, and there is no doubt whatsoever that Tiller does directly and daily violates that teaching, she ought not to take his blood money.
Bill Donohue says Sebelius and Tiller are “best friends.” I assumed that meant they’d at least had a couple of sleepover parties, and maybe exchanged a friendship bracelet or two.
Bob, I’m trying to remember when I said anything about “fresh faces.” Not at all sure what you mean…
Someone wrote … “As Catholics we have an obligation to promote a society and an environment that is supportive of families, mothers, and children.”
I’d say instead that we have an obligation to promote a society and environment that supports the flourishing of individuals. Not everyone wants to become or is able to become a parent.
First – he didn’t “win” it in an auction, he paid for it in an auction that her campaign ran.
Sean,
As you well know, the person who makes the highest bid in an auction makes the winning bid and wins the auction.
Examples:
I suppose it is your contention, which I won’t argue with, that she should have said, “No thank you. You made the winning bid, but I won’t take money from you.” If you want to criticize her for not doing that, go right ahead. But that part of Weigel’s account was misleading. Now, maybe he didn’t know any better, since there are hundreds of accounts all over the web accusing Sebelius of throwing a “secret party” for Tiller. But it is still misleading, and you are grasping at straws in saying Tiller didn’t win it, he bought it. Everybody knows what winning an auction means.
It is just as misleading to act as if their relationship is somehow fortuitous and not purposeful.
She knew who he was, she accepted his money both before and after this. This isn’t like a situation where someone took a picture of someone with a politician at a big gathering. She knew who he was before he showed up at her door, so in my book she threw the party for him. Would you feel the same if say, David Duke, “won” a party with George Bush?
“Ann, sometimes I get the impression that many liberals are motivated primarily by unresolved adolescent rebellion, but I don’t say it. (Oops!”
Kathy –
I agree, and it seems to me that there is an extended adolescent rebellion these days because since the 60′s the American culture has extended the length of adolescence. “Kids” no loger stop school at the end of high school. Rather, a majority go on to college, and and a good number of them extend their education well into into their 20′s, and I’m not just talking about professional schooling.
This lengthening of the adolescent period has resulted, I think, in the rebellious assumption by the young (and the formerly young boomers — sorry, boomers, you are now *formerly* young) that instant gratificaiton of all sorts is a right. This bit of unwisdom has led to the sexual revolution, which in turn has led to half the abortions in the U. S. being those of college “women”, or so I read not long ago. If you want to know a constantly overlooked cause of abortion by the liberals, the answer is extremely simple: more irresponsible sex.
So I think what you said needs saying.
Sean, I’d disagree with you on the abortion reduction analogy. The “pro-life” movement is about overturning Roe, in the main, and that is about reducing abortion–which such an action may, or likely may not, do. If it is just about claiming a principle of the dignity of life, and doing nothing to promote that, then it seems rather hollow. Pro-choicers will also say they respect the dignity of all human life, and are not “pro-abortion.” So where does that leave us?
I agree, and what’s more I think that some of the worst inclinations of men-as-sexual are very well served by abortion-on-demand.
Btw, I don’t know if I’ve regaled you with my own schematic theory of the difference between conservatives and liberals. I think it has to do with two differing preferences: for the moving or the still. Conservatives, my theory goes, think the heart of reality is eternal repose, while liberals think it is a heraclitean fire.
Which is yet one more false dichotomy…
“…which such an action may, or likely may not, do. ”
The notion that making an action illicit in a Republic with a well functioning police power is not going to reduce the incidence of that action seems incorrect to me. I mean, the state does a pretty good job of enforcing the law – I don’t see why if Roe were overturned and some of the several States passed legislation to restrict or prohibit abortion those states couldn’t enforce their laws.
She knew who he was, she accepted his money both before and after this. This isn’t like a situation where someone took a picture of someone with a politician at a big gathering.
My understanding is that an organization called Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus held a fund raiser, and a dinner and reception with the governor was one of the items auctioned to raise money. Tiller bid the most, and therefore he won (or bought, if you prefer) a reception at the governor’s house. I would guess that the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus probably knew who he was at the fund raiser, and obviously Governor Sebelius knew who he was. If you want to criticize the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus for taking money from the highest bidder, or if you want to criticize Sebelius for not refusing to hold the reception when she found out Tiller was to be the guest, then go ahead.
She knew who he was, she accepted his money both before and after this.
Actually, I am finding it difficult to verify that Sebelius herself accepted money from Tiller at any point, and it definitely looks like she did not accept any money from him for her campaign for governor. He did spend money trying to get her elected governor, but I don’t believe he contributed to her campaign.
Would you feel the same if say, David Duke, “won” a party with George Bush?
Why make up an analogy? Barack Obama, whom you consider (I believe) to be an evil man who is in favor not only of abortion, but also of forcing Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions, and whom the pro-life movement accuses of being in favor of infanticide and euthanasia, was welcomed cordially into the White House by George Bush.
I don’t see why if Roe were overturned and some of the several States passed legislation to restrict or prohibit abortion those states couldn’t enforce their laws.
MAT,
I think if Roe were overturned and a significant number of states prohibited abortion strictly, we might have something resembling Prohibition on our hands (although with the crime being nonviolent).
Your faith in law enforcement is stronger than mine. Look at the situation with Mexico and its drug cartels, where US citizens buy about $30 billion worth of Mexico’s illegal drugs. Not that it’s illegal (unfortunately), but the United States also sells the cartels 95% of their weapons.
Is there any evidence for this supposed “auction” that wasn’t constructed long after the fact?
David,
You need only look at public sources to see that Tiller gave thousands to Sebelius – and since the auction took place while she was governor – I don’t see the confusion.
“Pro-choicers will also say they respect the dignity of all human life, and are not “pro-abortion.” So where does that leave us?” It leaves us with the reasonable ability to judge whether this is true. Pro-choicers changed the law from protective of the unborn to a judicial mandate of legal abortion for all nine months of pregnancy. They oppose even the slightest restriction on abortion that is far away from criminalizing women–common sense things like parental notification that indisputably reduce abortions. They support government funding of Planned Parenthood and taxpayer paid abortions. They oppose conscience rights of pro-life health professionals and hospitals. They want to shut down the crisis pregnancy centers in which pro-lifers actually provide real alternatives to women. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, promote the opposite on each issue, far far more than merely standing for “overturning Roe, in the main,” and far more than justifies scare quotes around the “pro-life” movement, which quotes themselves betray indifference to the fact that over 1 million innocent children are executed in this country every year in the name of that “pro-choice” movement whose leaders are models of Catholic citizenship according to the signers of the Catholics United pro-Sebelius letter.
You need only look at public sources to see that Tiller gave thousands to Sebelius – and since the auction took place while she was governor – I don’t see the confusion.
Sean,
Point me to the public sources. I have been unable to find them. So far I have found that Tiller gave money to Sebelius’s PAC prior to her run for governor, but made no contributions to her during her run or during her time in office. He did actively support her candidacy and contribute money to organizations that supported her. And I think he even founded his own organization to support the candidacy. But I don’t believe he gave any money directly to her campaign.
As for the auction, the money was for the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus, to which Sebelius donated her time. She did not receive any money from Tiller paying up after putting in the highest bid at the auction. In effect, they were both donating to the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus, Tiller by making the winning bid, and Sebelius by hosting the reception that was what the auction winner received.
“They [pro-cjoice] oppose even the slightest restriction on abortion that is far away from criminalizing women–common sense things like parental notification that indisputably reduce abortions.”
– one reason they oppose parental notification is that it can lead to teens being put in jeopardy by abusive parents. There was a proposition on this in the last California election and it was opposed not just by groups like Planned Parenthood, but by the California Teachers Association and the ACLU.
“They support government funding of Planned Parenthood and taxpayer paid abortions.”
– they want poor women to have the same health options as those who can afford private insurance.
“They oppose conscience rights of pro-life health professionals and hospitals.”
– they want women to be able to have their prescriptions filled, especially women in rural areas where there aren’t amny health facilities to choose from. They want women to be informed of all their legal options instead of having doctors “gagged” on certain subjects. And from what I’ve seen in the news, doctors already have the option not to participate in abortions under existing federal law.
Ms. Watson – thanks for the objective clarifications. It only heightens the fact that these laws and proposed public policies are complex and impact different groups, etc.
In terms of Catholic hospitals – there is a current federal law that protects any employee from having to violate their conscience in fulfilling their job responsibilities. There are many Catholic hospitals which are also the only county hospital (e.g. rural as you noted) – to my knowledge, these catholic hospital systems have worked out a way to follow their catholic ethical and mission while at the same time using non-catholic staff to meet state and federal requirements to provide care to anyone who shows at the ER. It is a delicate balancing act.
To paint this picture as black and white, is to miss the complete point.
these catholic hospital systems have worked out a way to follow their catholic ethical and mission while at the same time using non-catholic staff to meet state and federal requirements to provide care to anyone who shows at the ER.
I would be interested in knowing more about this.
I would be interested in knowing more about this.
Kathy,
Sounds like the Catholic equivalent of a Shabbat goy!
I suspect that you suspect that hiring non-Catholics in a Catholic hospital to do the things Catholics cannot do in good conscience cannot itself be done in good conscience either. It does seem awfully tricky.
“- one reason they oppose parental notification is that it can lead to teens being put in jeopardy by abusive parents. There was a proposition on this in the last California election and it was opposed not just by groups like Planned Parenthood, but by the California Teachers Association and the ACLU.”
I wonder if existing or proposed parental-notification requirements contain any remedy or alternative to this problem – which would be very atypical – such as being able to go before a judge to have the requirement waived?
“- they want poor women to have the same health options as those who can afford private insurance.”
Do the human beings in the womb agree that abortion is good for their health? Do the mothers in whose wombs those human beings are carried have any moral obligations to the health and well-being of those human beings? Do the fathers of those human beings in the womb have any moral obligations to those children?
“- they want women to be able to have their prescriptions filled, especially women in rural areas where there aren’t amny health facilities to choose from. They want women to be informed of all their legal options instead of having doctors “gagged” on certain subjects. And from what I’ve seen in the news, doctors already have the option not to participate in abortions under existing federal law.”
Women, as well as men, are free to patronize any health care providers they wish. If they don’t care for the one who is closest, they can try one who is farther away. If accessing the one they prefer is an inconvenience, then they can either suffer the inconvenience or rejuggle their priorities or do without the care. If they want one to their liking to be closer to them, they can try to recruit one to relocate, or they themselves can relocate. In short, they are free to choose, within the confines of the law. Inasmuch as the current laws are unjust, they should and must be changed, but until that happy day, women, as well as men, have pretty much unbridled freedom to get an abortion, limited only by their own level of commitment to the procedure. The body politic is certainly under no moral obligation to make abortion more convenient – in fact, part of the rhetoric I hear emanating from the Left is that abortions should be less frequent, even rare.
You both miss the point and the context. Catholic hospitals and systems especially those that are the only county hospital follow federal guidelines and hiring practices – being catholic is not one of these.
Here are some links to a very complex issue:
http://www.chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/HP/Archive/2009/03March-April/Articles/SpecialSection/hp0903d.htm (long but good – here is a significant quote –
“The collaborative style of our mission integration department is a great practical example of theologian Fr. Bernard Lonergan’s theory of consciousness at work. Lonergan identified four levels of consciousness. First, there is the level of our experience, leading us to the second level of inquiry and understanding, which in turn leads to further questions arising from the first level. Third, there is the level of judging, where we test the truth of the answers we discover. In the fourth stage of consciousness we decide on a course of action that we have finally judged to be true. It is a tentative, dialectical process that distinguishes between absolute truth, which resides only in God and which theological formulas might adequately grasp but never fully capture, and our experience of the truth, which is always a dynamic, unfolding process. Once we mistake our experience of the truth for the truth itself, we make the fatal error of locking truth into that one moment of time, that one moment of insight, where we come to believe that no one else has anything more to say to us.
Our experience with the Organizational Ethics Discernment Process, which so many Catholic systems use in one form or another, demonstrates this important theory in action. First, we each approach a problem or a challenge in light of our limited experience. Second, through dialogue, and sharing of each other’s perspectives and experiences, we reach a new level of understanding, which, in turn, leads to further questions about our experiences and about the problem or challenge that lies before us. Third, through this dialogue of new insights, we reach yet a deeper level of understanding, of judging, where we are better positioned to test the truth of what is unfolding us. Fourth, we are then in a better position to choose the best course of action that resonates with the deepest levels of our consciousness.
This process does not lead to moral, religious or empirical relativism. Rather, it is rooted in the recognition that the deeper truths to which God is calling us can be revealed only in an ongoing dialectic. We do not seek other religious or scientific perspectives simply out of respect for other points of view; rather, we quite literally depend on them to deepen our understanding. We all need each other.
One other link: http://www.chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/HP/Archive/2009/03March-April/Articles/SpecialSection/hp0903e.htm
As you can see, the mission/ethics director works with CEOs, boards, and county boards to deliver the best care to citizens – no distinction in terms of religion, economic status, etc. That is the true gospel call to heal and give mercy.
“I’d say instead that we have an obligation to promote a society and environment that supports the flourishing of individuals. Not everyone wants to become or is able to become a parent.”
If we’re considering a pregnant woman contemplating an abortion, then we’ve already moved beyond individuals and are talking about a family.
“If we’re considering a pregnant woman contemplating an abortion, then we’ve already moved beyond individuals and are talking about a family.”
Yes, but what I’m suggesting is that you give some consideration to women as individuals before they become preganant instead of only paying attention to them once they are. Knowledge about one’s body and how it works plus the ability to access contraception if one wants it (saying you have a health plan where someone will actually fill your prescription) would make abortion less of an issue.
It seems to me, and maybe my perception is skewed, that women and fetuses are being pitted against each other in these issues. Pro-life people are unwilling to give in the direction of women’s rights because they see the consequences of that as so horrendous. But if women were taken seriously as individuals with the right to flourish instead of as future mothers, they might have the freedom and the resources to actually not need or want an abortion.
Crystal,
Supporters of abortion on demand regularly trot out these objections to reasonable restrictions on abortion and each and every one is a red herring.
First, parental notification. Every parental notification law there is has provisions to address the potential abuse issue. Considering that there is not a single other decision or action of this type. or any type, that a minor child has a right to keep secret from his or her parents – not one – what possible justification is there. For example, a child who has been arrested for a crime not only can’t claim a right to keep this from his or her parents, the police and child welfare people typically have an obligation to inform the parents. That’s a situation at least as likely to result in an angry parent abusing an adolescent child. There is something surreal about a society where a public school teacher can get a child suspended for taking an over the counter allergy pill, but wants the law to allow her to take a child to an abortionist.
Public funding. This has been the law for decades. Is there any evidence at all that it has actually been a problem? Given that we are constantly told that the poorest women get the most abortions how can we say tghis is a roadblock. Moreover, let people who so vehemently support abortion on demand pay for it through the many organizations who are willing.
Finally, on conscience provisions – again, what evidence there is a problem with access? Here in Massachusetts the pro-abortion lobby has been push removing any conscience exception to the law regarding dispensing RU 486. There are literally hundreds of hospitals and drug stores dispensing this drug, and only about 10 Catholic hospitals with emergency rooms that are affected. Is this about access, or political control and making a point?
Considering that there is not a single other decision or action of this type. or any type, that a minor child has a right to keep secret from his or her parents – not one – what possible justification is there.
Sean,
This is not correct.
New York law states that parents may not access the medical records of their minor child who has obtained an abortion or treatment for an STD. Health care providers in Colorado cannot be forced to release to a parent a minor’s medical records related to testing or treatment for STDs or drug addition. California allows minors 12 and over to enter into mental health treatment and drug treatment and to enjoy the right to doctor-patient confidentiality. There are undoubtedly other states that have similar laws, but I don’t have time to go hunting for them.
By the way, almost any minor (except for a small child, perhaps) undergoing any kind of counseling by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker, should be able to expect a very large measure of doctor-patient confidentiality. You can’t open up to a therapist if you know he or she is going to report everything you say (or acknowledge doing) to your parents.
This is a little dated, but here is an analysis of state laws that permit minors to give effective consent for medical treatment (the law is usually silent as to whether parents can or should be notified, with some states prohibiting and few mandating notification):
http://www.nacdsfoundation.org/user-assets/documents/word/hipaa/Parent-minor_chart.DOC
I’m writing from Australia.
I’m puzzled why there’s emphasis on one issue, in the US, when deciding if you’ll vote for a particular candidate for the Presidency.
Here , a matter such as abortion law, is debated in the Parliament with members of all political parties being permitted to vote according to their individual consciences…& not necessarily with the party-line, or even less, with any political leader. The Church & others who are anti such legislation, lobby to influence the public debate. And rightly so….as those with any other position can lobby, too.
I’m also puzzled how US Bishops can publicly state that a member of your equivalent of our Parliament, will be denied communion…..if they vote a certain way in the House.
Recently in Australia, there was a parliamentary debate on pending legislation about embryonic stem cell research… to which the Church takes a contrary position. This, too, was opened to a conscience vote, with some Catholic politicians stating they would vote ‘Yes’ & others ‘No’.
The senior Cardinal & also a senior Archbishop publicly said that Catholics who voted ‘Yes’ would suffer ‘consequences’. That was seriously frowned upon here as threatening members of Parliament is doing their job. It’s actually an offence to do so.
Catholic politicians who were taking the Church’s position & voting ‘No’, strongly spoke out against these Church leaders for doing this. Both Churchmen then backed down & returned, quite rightly, to speaking against the law itself & giving the Church’s position on it. In this, their input was welcomed into the public debate. But it was a case of ‘hands off’ making threats re consequences for Catholic members of Parliament.
There seems to be totally different approaches in both countries. Even tho’ both are liberal democracies, there must be different political processes.
I thought this last post needed praise, though I had hoped I had shot my wad before.
There is so much one issue approach/division here that I repeat I have so little hope for the future.
I was particularly upsat by Jim P. again in his post today saying that if women need some attention, perscriptuon, etc, if turned down, TOUGH they can travel or try somethone else as if that was as easy as pie.
It struck me as the kind of facile intellectualization of folks caught up in one philiosphical view divorced from the struggles in real life that many poor folks face.It struck me as the kind of intellectualized view some Bishops (including the head of Chicago) can talk about from their reading but divorced from the real life struggles people face, especially in troubled circumstances.
All this boiled up tonight when my copy of Church magazine arrived.
Lots of recollection of the wonderful beginning and the work of Msgr. Mrnion – a hero to many who knew him, including yours truly – who appreciated complexity and the need for serious study and repspctful dialogue.
This thread and the blog in general give me little hope for the common ground he sought with the late Cardinal Bernadin; it’s rapidly moving out of sight if not gone. Tioday we’re in the buibbles of our own views and what we think are smart rants or clever sophistries.
I just wanted to say I find it all sad.
I also signed on with Catholics United as a supporter of Sibelius.
I don’t want to be intrusive & push the Australian experience re Catholic politicians voting on life-sensitive matters…..& the response by Church authorities here.
But the issues are the same in relation to US Catholic politicians, such as Ms Sibellus.
A leading Australian Jesuit, Fr Frank Brennan, wrote an article at the time of the embryonic stem cell debate in the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament. After 2 Churchman, Cardinal Pell & Archbishop Hickey, appeared to say in public that Catholic politicians who voted ‘yes’, would face consequences, like being denied communion.
This article covers the issues….& the responses from the NSW Catholic politicians.
“Respect for politicians who represent all of us is crucial”, is the title.
Only in Australia, would a Cathollic politician tell the Cardinal that surely he didn’t want to be a ‘boofhead’! There’s actually some affection in being told off for being a ‘boofhead’, here.
The article works thro’ the role that politicians have to play…..& how it relates to their own faith.
It also covers how both the Cardinal & Archbishop Hickey (a lovely, kind man) revised what they’d said, to point out that they’d assume good fatih by anyone approaching them for communion.
In addition, there’s an excellent run-down on the nature of conscience by Bishop Fisher.
Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=3027
Marie, I doubt you would find precisely that level of reso.ution here. I’m pretty sure that most if not all American Catholics would allow that certain moral, civic actions can be so seriously offensive that the bishop might apply the remedy-to-scandal of refusal to communicate.
As an extreme example, let’s say there’s a parish in the Berlin suburbs. It’s 1936, Christmas Midnight Mass, and Josef Goebbels presents himself for Communion. If you were the parish priest, would you give him Communion? If not, why not?
David,
Be that as it may, none of the examples you cite are based on the justification that the minor will be abused. They are (foolishly in my opinion) based on the premise that if they are not confidential then the minor won’t get help. Since the abortion industry can’t say that the reason they want this confidentiality is so the minor girl will have the abortion they use the red herring of the risk of abuse. Additionally, I suspect some of the examples you cite aren’t exactly the same thing. We have similar rules about confidentiality and “sexual health” treatment of adolescents in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, but I still have to consent to treatment generally. In other words, I may not know exactly what the physician says to my daughter in the exam room, but I do kniow she is being treated and I do know that the doctor will address sexual issues. I know this because I had to talk with my children’s pediatrician about it.
It seems to me a critical question that abortion on demand supporters are never required to justify is why the reasons for parental notification for virtually all other medical procedures doesn’t apply here. Abortion is not a minor procedure. There can be complications. It seems to me that to justify their position abortion proponents ought provide more than just conjecture about abuse. Is the risk of abuse greater than the risk that a child will get an infection, perforate her uterus, bleed excessively? If the welfare of the girl is what the abortion industry really cares about you’d think they’s care about those risks as much or more than they care about the potential for abuse.
Marie,
We do have different processes, and one critical point is, as you say, in Australia, “a matter such as abortion law, is debated in the Parliament with members of all political parties being permitted to vote according to their individual consciences.”
In the US, this didn’t happen. In one fell swoop, seven judges overturned centuries of law. We didn’t get to debate it. That is one reason, I believe, that the disussion can be so heated.
Marie H – appreciate your thoughtful analysis and questions. I follow more closely to the thoughts of Bob Nunz and do not agree with Mr. Hannaway’s view.
In the US, Roe v Wade was a ruling by the Supreme Court on a matter that probably should have been decided by our legislative branch. But, the legislative branch has been unable or unwilling to resolve this issue. It is also much more complex than Mr. Hannaway’s throw away comment. Roe v Wade ruled on the rights of women to health care decisions; whether abortion is a criminal act or should be; etc.
Here is another analysis from a different stand point and may respond to your country’s experience – it is by Cristina Page and is about the nomination of a US governor, Sebelius, to fill the US Health & Human Sevices Department Cabinet Position:
Quote from Cristina Page: “If falling in line with the US Bishops is a requirement for being a “real” Catholic, that’s bad news for Catholics, as well as for the Church which, on this issue, seems to ever more devoutly move to the fringe of American life. According to a poll of Catholic voters taken by Catholics for a Free Choice in the 2008 election, 73% say Catholic politicians should be under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. And like Sebelius, the majority of Catholics are pro-choice (58%). They vehemently disagree with the Church on birth control – the church opposes every form but the as-ineffective-as-it-is-unpopular natural family planning. In fact, three-quarters of Catholics want health insurance plans to cover contraception. Nearly 80% of Catholics oppose pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. A comfortable majority, 64%, oppose abstinence-only education, another favorite of the moralizing bishops, and their activist enablers. Based on these numbers, the Church might want to reconsider its campaign to deny pro-choice Catholic public officials the eucharist. The Church may refer to pro-choice politicians as extremists but the majority of Catholic congregants agree with pro-choice politicians like Sebelius on every one of these issues.
Sebelius thus represents the mainstream view of Catholic believers. And so the Catholic clergy and its political arm, the so-called ‘anti-abortion” movement, misleads and incites. It creates a caricature. This may be effective with some, but they are fewer and fewer. Indeed, deriding moderate politicians like Sebelius marks the Church as out of step with the majority of Catholics. The Church has been reduced to focusing on issues that most Catholics, and most Americans, no longer consider most important, if they ever did.
In the last election, abortion didn’t even make it in the top ten on the list of Catholic voters’ priorities. Instead, the most important issues for Catholic Americans were, in order of importance: improving the nation’s economy; protecting the US from terrorism; resolving the war in Iraq; making health care more affordable; and protecting social security. The Church has been noticeably absent in the public discourse on these issues making its rabid attacks on even moderate pro-choice officials seems all the more extraneous. (Those who would argue that Catholic hospitals help make healthcare more affordable by offering charity care should know that a study showed that public hospitals were three times more likely to provide charity care than religious hospitals–the bulk of which are Catholic.)”
Complete link: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/Catholic_extremists_swiftboat_Sebelius.htm
Marie H – one more interesting post from David Gibson at Pontifications about the state of Kansas bishop, Naumann, vs. Sebelius, governor of his state:
Link: http://blog.beliefnet.com//pontifications/2009/03/naumann-v-sebelius-the-battle.html
Sebelius thus represents the mainstream view of Catholic believers.
Interesting, since those who oppose her call her a “pro-abortion extremist” and George Weigel says, “Kathleen Sebelius is an abortion radical by any reasonable definition of the term.”
And I note the article you link to is titled “Catholic Extremists Swiftboat Sebelius.”
We seem to live in a world where everyone is either a pro-abortion extremist or an anti-abortion extremist.
In the interest of full disclosure to our fellow blogger from the Land Down Under, it should be noted that Cristina Page is (or was) an officer in NARAL New York City, and that NARAL is one of the largest and most active pro-choice organizations in the U.S. Ms. Page is certainly entitled to her opinions, however, though I wish she had provided a cite for her statement that 58% of Catholics are pro-choice. The Pew Forum, which I think most people will agree does not have any axe to grind, states that “opinion on the issue [of abortion] is also closely divided among Catholics, with about half (49%) saying abortion should be legal and a similar percentage (47%) saying it should not.” 49% is a plurality, but it’s not a majority, and the Pew Forum also notes that a clear majority of Catholics favor at least some restrictions on abortion.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=350
“The Church has been reduced to focusing on issues that most Catholics, and most Americans, no longer consider most important, if they ever did.”
When I was young it seemed that most Catholics were not interested in or did not consider the segregation of races important. Archbishop Rummel came along and persuaded most of us that we were wrong.
I’d say he was right to speak out and to keep hammering at it for a generation..
“since Sebelius is a practicing Catholic…AND supports abortion rights.”
Here is my proof that no one can be a practicing Catholic and support abortion rights.”
ALL practicing Catholics believe in the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church believes that Human Life, the Life of ALL Human Individuals begins at Conception. ALL practicing Catholics believe that Human Life, the Life of ALL Human Individuals, begins at Conception.
Any person who supports abortion rights is NOT a practicing Catholic.
Back to Sebelius, the original topic of a thread that has strayed far and wide, from us bad Boomers with our sexual revolution and extended adolescence to heraclitean fire of which I know not:
Maybe, for purely pragmatic reasons, it’s a poor idea to appoint or elect any Catholic unwilling to tow the line on Church teaching re abortion and gay marriage to any secular office, and certainly not one who has been barred from communion by her bishop.
Certainly Sebelius’s support of some restrictions on abortion are cutting no ice with our Most Faithful to the Magisterium friends here. Some are calling for another pro-life March on Washington in the wake of Sebelius’s appointment.
My fear is that Sebelius, and others unwilling to push magisterial teaching into secular law, will become such a lightning rods for highly publicized criticism by other Catholics, that they will be ineffective in their jobs.
On the other hand, what puzzles me is the amount of heat Gov. Sebelius has received for apparently not single-handedly overturning Roe v. Wade in the state of Kansas. Actually, she has no power to do this. She has power only to sign into law those measures restricting abortions or providing help for pregnant women that the legislature puts before her. It seems to me that she has done what’s within her purview as a governor to try to reduce abortions.
So why the invective from Donohue and others?
What am I missing? About Sebelius in particular. No side rants on the rate of college student abortions, kids being held over boiling pots of water, or Josef Goebbels, please.
Amen to Jean Raber’s injunction. I’ve been tempted to end this thread at certain points as the comments were straying so far and clogging my in-box with randomness that it seemed to have run its course, and out of good taste, at points. But there seems to be continued interest and flickers of useful discussion. So I won’t euthanize it. Yet.
Mr. Gibson – it was not my intent to post off topic or clog your in-box. I did think that the comments from Down Under were related to your original post.
I did add some reflections from the hospital side as an example of the far right making inaccurate statements, inflammatory accusations, and threats. In the real world of a catholic hospital system, even the issue of abortion has to be faced one patient at a time and becomes a practical issue; not a political issue.
I did post a quote and link to a far left view, Page, but thought it highlighted your original blog – why the reaction to the nomination of Sebelius.
Have been re-reading Richard McBrien’s book, Caesar’s Coin – Religion & Politics in America. It focuses on the 1984 presidential election cycle – the talks by Cuomo, meeting with O’Connor, the rejection of Ferrarro (not unlike Pelosi this fall). Some points that are connected to Sebelius:
a) USCCB had a voters guide that stated that the church would not support or sponsor any party or candidate. It did see its role as speaking to common good and public morality. It linked their recent documents on the economy and peace to abortion, etc. to establish a consistent ethic of life – it rejected the single issue approach. It called upon each catholic voter to follow their conscience and look at the totality of a candidate’s positions and experience;
b) Unfortunately, two high profile cardinals, O’Connor and Law, took it upon themselves to publically castigate various democratic candidates and to focus on a single issue, threaten loss of communion, etc. establishing a pattern that continues today; (at one point they were all but publically confronted by Bernandin for this behavior);
c) to your point, 2 cardinals + 23 bishops rejected a balanced approach; rejected the fact that one can hold a moral principle that all life is sacred and yet realize that public policy exists in the world of negotiation and a public consensus before making law.
d) simply, there is not catholic dogma that tells us how to politically implement a public moral principle. There is a distinction between a moral principle and political/legal strategies. It rejects single issue approaches.
e) Commonweal headline from October, 1984 – Diversity of Opinions regarding abortion exists among committed catholics. An example of this were statements from Fr. T. Hesburgh about a “remarkably well-kept secret” – a catholic minority is currently imposing its belief on a demonstratable majority. He called on catholics to join other citizens who may not favor an absolute prohibition on abortion – asked catholics to hold their higher principles but work for a consensus which limited abortion to cases or rape, incest, abuse, life threatening issues. He used Gallup poll % that are not much different from the ones quoted by Page currently.
f) finally, Cuomo, Hesburgh and others stated that catholics and their leaders are the ones who failed in this issue; not caeser. Catholics continue to have abortions and it is as if we are asking for a criminal law so we can follow our moral principles.
It seems to me that we are currently asking folks such as Sebelius to reject her public policy role and enact laws outlawing all abortion – it is an all or nothing approach; black and white.
Rather than the course of action outlined by Cuomo – moral principle is to defend life but work within the current political environment to reduce, limit, and set an example that proves to others that our moral principle is justified – you can’t use catholic dogma to do this.
It appears to me that things have only gotten more complex and more heated since 1984.
Bill DeHass: Perhaps I shouldn’t have been so vague in my criticism. I thought your posts were on point, if challenging, which the whole topic is. Please continue. My comment regarded civility and citations that go beyond the pale. Apologies.
Oh yes, by all means, let’s maintain good taste and common decency in this discussion.
Kathy, give it a rest.
First, I sincerely thank Bill Colier in pointing out the background of a recent poster.
We know very little about what drives a number of folks here who post -some of whom only have a first name or a(sometimes self-serving) handle.
I thought about that because the Vatican seems to hav ea far more gentle approach to Obama and to his folk than the Americans here.
In fact, the Obama budget was noted as being a moral break with the past budgets.
So the issue of perspective is always important: it strikes me that in the toxic divides we live in here. the intertwining of political leaning with our views of the Church and its leadership often shapes what we hold/present/ but not always clearly in the starting point(s) we’re coming from.
Gladly. You guys are nuts.
Not exactly what I had in mind, Kathy. But I think it’s a good idea if you give the blog, or at least my posts, a rest. Thanks.
Bill DeHaas, what you say offers context for looking at Catholic politicians who are, in the main, social liberals, but who are called by the Church and their consciences to take issue with abortion.
My sense is that the objection to Catholics like Sebelius come from two directions within the Church.
1: Those who believe in a liberal social agenda (helping the poor, providing for the elderly, outlawing capital punishment), and who see abortion as part of that package and who are disgusted that there isn’t the same urgency to outlaw abortion.
2. Those who are social conservatives and who believe abortion is first among many evils, along with the welfare state, minimum wage, bailouts and other programs they believe weakens the moral fabric of society.
Incrementalism as a way to reduce abortions strikes many Catholics, certainly the most passionate on this thread, as a cop out.
However, it might be an interesting exercise to imagine, assuming Roe v. Wade is never overturned, what might happen to state laws restricting abortion if all Catholic politicians who embraced incrementalism were taken out of the political landscape. Do Catholics like Sebelius impede the goal of outlawing abortions? Or do they further it by making some inroads?
Thanks, Mr. Gibson and good questions, Ms. Raber. From my stance, incremental steps are what we can do right now given the public consensus – the record of Sebelius notes several achievements in this area. Yes, she leans towards pro-choice but is clear about why and it is linked to her concerns about health care, the economically poor, access to health care, access to prevention, education, etc.
For me, a deeper question is the role of bishops – they are teachers but also listeners. The challenge is to take our catholic moral principle that all life is sacred, support this with a rational natural law argument, and live this as an example. Not sure we are doing that?
Also, in the book by McBrien he states some initial contextual moral principles – a couple are the need to have a civil discourse with those who disagree; and the need to preserve personal freedom and the unity of the nation for the common good. In much earlier blogs, one suggestion from the single issue folks is to equate abortion with slavery – if a law can not be passed, then we just might have to resort to a type of civil war. McBrien sees this approach and argument as violating the basic moral principle that the common good comes first; not a single issue such as abortion.
What does Mr.McBrien have to say about those who profess to be Catholic but disagree with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’s teaching on protecting the Life of the Unborn?
Ms. Danielson – do you know who Mr. McBrien is?