However you feel about this issue, the Montana Catholic Conference's rationale for not backing CI-100 is full of holes. It cries out for a good fisking.
First, rather than cite scripture or the Catechism or Humanae Vitae, they resort to a shallow legal pragmatism. From the letter from Bishops Thomas and Warfel which was passed out at Mass last weekend:
For several yas the Roman Catholic Bishops of the US have been working to promote a human life amendment to the US Constitution which is fundamentally different from a state initiative due to the fact that Roe is a federal not a state issue.Abortion was a state issue until Roe took it out of the states' hands. And the minute Roe finally collapses from the weight of its own error, the issue will immediately return to the states. The laws as they exist on the books at that time will have effect.
But, like the local pol who avoids the Dreaded Abortion Question by saying it's a federal issue, the Church refers us to the US Supreme Court. Then, as if written by NARAL, the letter outlines "alternate strategies" to end abortions:
1) Establishing and funding pregnancy help centers that promote informed choice by offering alternatives to abortion, especially adoption;But we already have crisis pregnancy centers in Montana's cities. A lot of people have been "working to" provide these services, including First Way and Mountain Home in Missoula. Were these monumental volunteer efforts all for naught?
2) Provide supported services for pregnant and parenting women including low income women and college students patterned after the federal "Pregnant Women Support Act";Here the bishops seem to ignore a whole system of taxpayer-funded services - welfare, Medicaid, WIC, Section 8 housing, pro bono legal services, just to name a few - in order to make the common pro-abort argument that "we don't do anything" for children already born. If they are objecting to cutbacks in welfare eligibility since 1996 then they should say so. But again, do all the things that are already being done come to nothing?
3) Bolster alternatives by increasing adoption services for women who place their infant for adoption;And what of the Catholic Social Services in this state? Do they not amount to anything? Do they need money? Then let's work on that.
4) Pass a law requiring parental notification with judicial bypass in cases where the woman seeking an abortion is under eighteen.This statement blithely ignores nearly 15 years of efforts to enact a parental notification statute in Montana. One was passed in 1995 but swiftly ruled unconstitutional by the Montana Supreme Court. Republicans attempted to carry another parental notification bill in 2001 but failed. The notification statute (MCA 20-50-212) remains on the books. In the 2007 session Republican legislators tried to address the judicial bypass or "waiver" clause but the bill died in committee. Obviously a lot of effort has gone into enacting and then salvaging a parental notification law - where were the Montana bishops through all this?
The letter continues, "We are currently working to develop a broad-based coalition to examine these and other alternatives...." The meaning of this second, weasely "working to," respective to all that has been done, is not fleshed out.
The bishops' letter is an evasion worthy of a politician "personally opposed" to abortion. (This Missoulian religion article from last November actually makes a better argument.) Is that really the tack the bishops want to take?
I expect more from the bishops than mere realpolitik.
51 comments:
They probalby made a political decision not to ally themselves with extremists.
The church is a bit conflicted on abortion - the Bible is silent on the matter, so there is no guidance there. So the Catholics opted for this strategy: Since we don't know the answer, we default to preservation of potential life.
But there is no certaintly in their position. They're as confounded as everyone else. With that position, it would be wise for Catholics to advise other Catholics, and stay out of the national political debate. They shouldn't enforce church rules on society as a whole.
I think this is what thee bishops have done, and I applaud them.
They made the right decision.
We have a name for the time when the Catholic church ruled Western Civilization. We call those times...the Dark Ages.
Without the Catholic Church, Western civilization wouldn't have survived the so-called "Dark Ages."
And there is nothing "extremist" about wanting to preserve human life. The bishops copped out - a fine inspiration they are.
Mark T. wrote "the Bible is silent on the matter"
See: Exodus 20:13
Goofy:
What do you know about Western Civilization?
Tell us when the “Catholic Church ruled Western Civilization.” Tell us when the “Dark Ages” was and who invented the term. You have no clue, do you? All you have is a grammar school understanding of Western history, like Mark Trotsky.
Now scurry off to your Wikipedia and try to look smart, you mouse-brained imbecile.
Heyyyy. Goof's my pal.
But yes, I believe "Dark Ages" was a pejorative invented by the Enlightenment philosophes. They have a rather mixed legacy themselves.
If any church wants to express an opinion and attempt to influence a political issue, they should lose their tax exempt status.
I think abortion was strictly a moral issue until the government got involved - then it became a political issue as well. The same for gay marriage and a host of other things.
While I may not agree with your personal decisions, I respect your right to make them. I don't know what gives me the right or authority to even have an opinion on your personal choices whether I agree with them or not.
Agree with Mike Laroche "And there is nothing "extremist" about wanting to preserve human life. . However, the flip side is also true.
Exodus 20:13: "you shall not murder".
Gail, your reading of that passage is entirely subjective. It's kind of like, you know, the debate.
Anyway, the Bible is full of murder. A more accurate rendering of the passage might be "You shall not murder citizens of your own country". The US is involved right now in murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Care about that?
My statement that the Bible is silent on abortion is not my opinion. It is that of the Catholic Church. I'm repeating what they say. The church is right to counsel its own members, and stay out of the public debate.
Mark, give up on the theology arguments. Warfare is not murder, even though some want to classify it that way.
Defending yourself or others is an exception to the "no killing" rule. And calling soldiers "murderers" does not help to make you look like anything other than a very shallow thinker.
The Bible says thou shalt not kill, but we kill all the time. It can only mean thou shalt no kill your own countrymen, since we kill others all the time. But that's a subjective reading. Right? Isn't that what was doing when she referred me to Exodus.
The actions of soldiers are an aside - they are mere machines following orders. If an invasion is illegal and immoral, then all that follows is illegal and immoral.
Anyway, indiscriminate bomibing is murder, shooting of innocent civilians is murder, and staraving kids to death is murder.
Murder. I know the meaning of words.
Steve said :Warfare is not murder, even though some want to classify it that way.
Now there I disagree. One could interpret that remark to mean that the people that died in the twin towers were not murdered as Bin Laden was/is at war with us. I would say that the aggressor in any war is guilty of murder. I would also say that killing civilians in a war, by either the aggressor or defender, is murder, whether it is "collateral damage" or not.
"[The Enlightenment philosophes] have a rather mixed legacy themselves."
Now there is the understatement of the year. You are talking about the source of all evil in the modern world.
PS: I am sorry your friend is a mouse-brained imbecile, like Mark Trotsky.
Missoulapolis: always understated!
Mark T said "The Bible says thou shalt not kill, but we kill all the time. It can only mean thou shalt no kill your own countrymen, since we kill others all the time."
Actually, the Bible is full of things that call for the death penalty from sleeping with sheep to sassing your parents. And since the rules would have applied to all who lived in that land at that time, they would have been applicable to their own countrymen.
I think that the better translation is "Thou shall not commit murder." Murder being the wrongful taking of life without authority and justification.
As to the rest of your comment, the "indiscriminate bombing," and "shooting of innocent civilians" is the first time that I have ever seen you actually condemn the terrorists that do those things, whether through car bombing, or the execution of those of the wrong sect.
Oh, wait, you meant the American soldiers. Now I see that you are still on your same (errant) track.
"I think that the better translation is "Thou shall not commit murder."
Correct. That is the Hebrew translation.
I await you coming to grips with the crimes of your own country - you can actually do something about that. But you're not up to facing that, are you.
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell
""The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell"
Under your theory, you are a nationalist with the car bombers, suicide bombers, beheaders, etc. I am sure that is not what you meant.
Get real, Steve - we do far more killing than they do - by a factor of hundreds. the manner of killing might differ, but the result is the same.
Orwell made a good point - I really believe you cannot see what your own country is doing, that you are incapable of seeing.
BTW, I liked Orwell's antiabortion story, Keep the Aspadistra Flying.
Get real, Steve - we do far more killing than they do - by a factor of hundreds. the manner of killing might differ, but the result is the same.
Here comes the old moral equivalency argument, right on schedule!
Yes, right on.
Our only hope is Trotsky will find a "good" country--and move there!
Back on topic, I thought the Catholic Church was starting to repair itself and returning to its traditional role as a bulwark against secularism and immorality. Maybe the Montana bishops haven’t gotten the message yet: selling out to depraved liberalism is not the future of the Church.
Mark T said...
They probalby made a political decision not to ally themselves
with extremists.
Sorry, Mark, but I don't thinkit's extreme to stop slaughtering human beings by the millions (about 45 million in 30 years). I think future generations will view this state-protected barbarism with rightful horror and astonishment.
The church is a bit conflicted on abortion - the Bible is silent on the matter, so there is no guidance there. So the Catholics opted for this strategy: Since we don't know the answer, we default to preservation of potential life.
I don't know where you got the idea that Catholicism was conflicted on the subject of abortion. It is clearly defined in Catholic doctrine that to procure or assist in procuring an abortion is a serious sin and results in de facto excommunication.
Besides there's no big philosophical conundrum here...a human being is the same being from the point of conception until natural death. At no time, can any of us ascertain a point where that being becomes human. The child simply is continuously human.
But there is no certaintly in their position. They're as confounded as everyone else. With that position, it would be wise for Catholics to advise other Catholics, and stay out of the national political debate. They shouldn't enforce church rules on society as a whole.
Enforce?!!. This thread is about offering an initiative to voters to define personhood as beginning at conception. Catholics are not confounded, nor are those people who staunchly support abortion. The one group recognizes human life when they see it, and the other wants to enforce their individual freedoms on the innocent even if it means destroying them.
As far as Catholics staying out of the debate, since when are they any less entitled by their citizenship than you are. Bigotry is not dead!
I think this is what thee bishops have done, and I applaud them.
What the bishops have done is betray their personal conscience and those of the people they are to shepherd. It is scandalous!
You need to summarily dismiss Mark Trotsky’s comments. He is a deeply confused young man who comes from a family of Catholic communists. Excuse me. I mean liberation theologists. You know, those men of the cloth who go around third-world countries, stir up the natives, and then get everybody killed?
"... and then get everybody killed."
How easily you slip into passive voice.
I'll take "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just (righteous) powers from the consent of the governed” over Catholicism’s “none are righteous, no not one” , Augustine’s divine right of kings, and Romans 13's contention that authorities receive their power from God.
As Jefferson wrote, “The doctrines of Europe were that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice but by forces physical and moral wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence the organizations of kings, princes and priests.”
As for who has the right to a woman’s body, be it government or fetus, the Enlightenment has the answer, “every man has a property in his own person. This no body has any right to but himself”. The application of this fundamental Lockean right of property would contend that the fetus cannot enslave the woman for any reason. No definition of "labor" can be more personal than the labor of giving birth.
The Declaration of independence was intended by it's author to be "the signal arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had pursuaded them to bind themselves". What do you think he meant by "monkish ignorance and superstition"?
It is as bold a statement rejecting European religion and embracing the Enlightenment as could be written in a political document.
That's our government. I want my bishops to be bishops, and speak for the Church's views.
Temporizing I can get anywhere.
Yes, Carol, and C-100 IS GOVERNMENT.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
--George Washington
Farewell Address (1796)
[Goofy: For your further enlightenment. Enjoy!]
*****
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
--John Adams, second President of the United States
"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
--Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."
--Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution
"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."
--John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."
--James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
--Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary
"Yes, Carol, and C-100 IS GOVERNMENT." So you're saying churches can't give any kind of guidance to their members? Changing the constitution by democratic means doesn't seem like any sort of church-state conflict.
Is it proper for secular NGO's allowed to endorse/oppose but not religious entities? I'll bet Planned Parenthood has something to say about I-100.
Actually I think Mark T's very first statement is correct. It just depends on who you're calling "extremist." Pardon me if I object to my bishops' definition and to their political decisions.
Actually, Carol, what you were asking for was an endorsement of a ballot issue from the church. Should it endorse candidates, too?
Perhaps it should excommunicate candidates whose political views differ from the church's?
as for checker five, well, I've read Barton's books, have a signed copy of one. the one where he includes the made up quotations. I don't need an endless series of quotes that you've copied from some hack's book. Show me some original thinking, without the name calling, otherwise, yawn.
Churches could very easily define any political issue as a moral one and jump into the political arena. In fact, they have. The religious right is all over the map in politics. They are out of bounds, in my opinion.
Churches should offer moral guidance to their members, but stay out of the political arena.
Although I must say that the idea of churches paying taxes has appeal. Want to play? Pay.
goof, the bishops apparently thought an endorsement was expected, so issued their opinion. I happen to not agree with it, but lest you think I'm totally Out There, I did link to a newspaper religion-page article by a local Lutheran that more persuasive, if her stats are accurate, and a lot of phony stats have been thrown around in the last 40 years.
BTW, excommunication is very, very rare anymore. Some people assume they're excommunicated if they disagree with something, or stop attending Mass, but it is a formal process and no one ever threatens us with it.
The only homily resembling a political endorsement I ever heard was one in 2004, when we were told to "not vote on the basis of greed." Naturally, I assumed this meant not to vote for a candidate who would push for universal health and other entitlements that could benefit me directly. ;-)
Heirloom, I deleted your duplicate comment...
Mark, that's a hard one for me too. I guess Congress thought churches were a good thing, like they thought marriage and families were a good thing.
Carol Said: "The only homily resembling a political endorsement I ever heard was one in 2004, when we were told to "not vote on the basis of greed." Naturally, I assumed this meant not to vote for a candidate who would push for universal health and other entitlements that could benefit me directly. ;-)"
Now one could have interpreted that to mean to vote against the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton party and against America's greed for oil and power.
Carol said:"I guess Congress thought churches were a good thing, like they thought marriage and families were a good thing.
I think Congress should leave America's morality to the churches and leave marriage and families alone.
Tax law is chock full of policy stuff. You need to elect congress people to repeal it. As if you didn't know..
Carol said "You need to elect congress people to repeal it.
I'm working on it :-)
Did you see the article the other day on Koopman targeting other Republicans?
Goofy:
Those quotes I published must have given you a hell of a slap in the head. Do you realize you said the quotes were all made up?
Get out of denial and refurbish your shabby education with a copy of “The Founders on God and Government,” by Daniel L. Dreisbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry H. Morrison (2004).
Anonymous goof houlihan said...
...As for who has the right to a woman’s body, be it government or fetus, the Enlightenment has the answer, “every man has a property in his own person. This no body has any right to but himself”. The application of this fundamental Lockean right of property would contend that the fetus cannot enslave the woman for any reason. No definition of "labor" can be more personal than the labor of giving birth.
Does not the woman enslave her child (for it is as much a child when dwelling within the mother as it is seconds after birth) as well. This is a situation that came about through the will of the mother, whether spurious, real or careless. If she is enslaved, she has enslaved herself. The child, who has been called into being by the mother and is in her total control, is a separate and unique person. with its own genetic footprint, its own unique DNA, its own heartbeat, and its own brain. Calling upon the sahdes of the Enlightenment to judge a situation unthought of in their time, doesn't suffice. I doubt many of them would have counseled abortion as the policy of a free country or the careless day-to-day abolition of millions of its citizens in the name of that freedom.
carol said...
BTW, excommunication is very, very rare anymore. Some people assume they're excommunicated if they disagree with something, or stop attending Mass, but it is a formal process and no one ever threatens us with it.
You are right Catholics are not threatened with excommunication (though the commission of serious sin requires that we excommunicate ourselves in the sense that we are no longer in communion with the Church and its beliefs).
However, what I said about abortion and excommunication is true. Here is the excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was published in the 1990s.
"2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 'A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae' (76) 'by the very commission of the offence', (77) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . (78) The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."
Heirloom, yes I know what you said is true. But a lot of non-Catholics seem to assume we are constantly threatened with hellfire and excommunication by our pastors, when that is not the case, at least not in my parish. No more Church Militant!
helmvlmike, I kind of expected that to happen, after Natelson's report, but I thought the challenges to come more on an individual basis. I'm surprised a little about who's NOT on the list.
" Do you realize you said the quotes were all made up?"
Nope, that's what YOU said, name caller. I said I'd read Bartons book and had a signed copy with the made up quotes.
Perhaps you should scurry off to Wall builders for some more non sequiturs. I'm still waiting for you to post an original thought.
With all that name calling and head slappin and makin up what I say, you're makin a great case .
"I guess Congress thought churches were a good thing, like they thought marriage and families were a good thing."
Carole - I don't think Congress did that because they thought churches were a good thing. I think they realized that churches were part of us, but wanted to put some distance between church and government.
But I am relieved that congress thinks marriage and families are a good thing. We had a gay couple move in down the block from us, and that's why I think we finally got divorced. Gay marriage. Thanks for defending us.
My wife and I are the only ones who can sanctify our marriage.
Here's a favorite quote...one neither Mark T nor namecaller will approve:
"The Middle Ages were an era of mysticism, ruled by blind faith and blind obedience to the dogma that faith is superior to reason. The Renaissance was specifically the rebirth of reason, the liberation of man's mind, the triumph of rationality over mysticism—a faltering, incomplete, but impassioned triumph that led to the birth of science, of individualism, of freedom."
Ayn Rand
the atheist slut was an equal opportunity offender.
MarkT said: We had a gay couple move in down the block from us, and that's why I think we finally got divorced.
Sorry, I cannot resist... Which one did you leave her for?
The Ayn Rand quote was dead on.
And oh did I walk into that one.
Goofy:
You are the fellow pasting all the irrelevant and spurious quotations, and you are waiting for me to post an “original thought”?
If I missed something substantive that you yourself actually wrote, please direct me to it, and I will respond. Otherwise, lay aside your little sock puppets and trundle off to bed.
Post a Comment