Blogs and Stories
The Church's Abortion Mistake
Scott Olson / Getty Images
By focusing exclusively on the abortion issue in the health-care debate, James Carroll says the Catholic Church is sabotaging its broader moral mission.
What happens when a mainstream institution is taken over by its fringe? One answer plays itself out in the Republican Party, where lunatic rhetoric now defines politics. Another shows itself in the Catholic Church, whose leadership has fallen into the trap of single-issue moralism. That the aggressively lobbying Catholic bishops were prepared to kill the health-care reform bill in the House last week over abortion shows how far they have come from the broad tradition of Catholic social teaching that sees the common good as involving multiple values. Negotiation and compromise are essential to solidarity. When values conflict, as they inevitably do in legislation, ethical reasoning assumes a delicate balance, weighing one issue against another. Abortion represents one such moral question that carries special gravity for Catholics. Despite the bishops’ assertions, however, there are others—notably, a universal right to quality health care, which the bishops have supported for years, but which they were prepared last week to throw overboard rather than accept a compromise that would have covered abortions by patient co-payments instead of government funds.
Because the American Catholic drumbeat on abortion has been so loud and unrelenting in recent years, it is easy to forget that the Catholic Church has long had a complex and nuanced approach to moral questions. That is reflected in Pope Benedict’s recent encyclical “Love in Truth,” which offers timely reflections on globalization, development, the economic crisis, and threats to the environment—all based on a broadly defined “common good” that has tremendous relevance for the debate unfolding in Washington. But Benedict gives marching orders to the bishops, which came last week from a different book. His complex vision of the common good was nowhere in evidence as the health-care bill was reduced to one question, defined in its most parochial terms, a dreadful narrowing of concern. Where, for example, was Catholic institutional weight early in the legislative process when undocumented immigrants were excluded from the health-care benefits?
• Peter Beinart: Why Democrats Were Smart to Bail on Abortion
• Dana Goldstein: How Abortion Splits the Reform Coalition
• Benjamin Sarlin: 6 Senators Stalling Health Care
• Amy Siskind: Obama Sells Out Women Again The ethical ideal of “common good” has its secular equivalent in the political idea of “commonwealth,” but in America that has yielded to a new organizing image—the casino. The world is divided between the lucky few and the miserable many, with everyone agreeing that there simply isn’t enough to go around. Therefore, it’s me, myself, and I. Our traditional faith (evident as recently as during the civil-rights movement) that a commonwealth can actually be achieved and protected has been eroded, with the Republican Party as the chief exemplar and advocate of this radical individualism. But that’s not all: Our self-aggrandizing polarization is driven also by contempt for out-groups like dark-skinned newcomers, gay people, and the very poor. We know who we are by whom we hate. Alas, Catholic leaders talk like that now, too—about their opponents in debate.
Here is where the health-care legislation comes in—as nothing less than an attempt to rescue some semblance of common-good politics, for the benefit of all. That is why the readiness of the Catholic bishops to sell out the reform bill was so disturbing. Single-issue politics always distorts the larger picture—and today’s larger picture threatens the transformation of the commonwealth into an unjust and uncivil gambling den.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Go to Hiroshima
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
The Catholic Church's Next Scandal
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
Your Move, Mr. Ahmadinejad
James Carroll's recent book is Practicing Catholic, a story of American belief. He is a columnist for the Boston Globe and Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University. His other books include An American Requiem, which won the National Book Award, House of War, winner of the PEN-Galbraith Award, and Constantine's Sword, now an acclaimed documentary.
Yeah, c'mon bishops, what's wrong with you? You could have gotten all these social goods, and all you would have needed to do was endorse the public funding of baby killing. I mean, seriously; you're WAY too hung up on that.
The church also supports genocide, unless they disagree with the "word of the lord". 1 Samuel 15 2-3:
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
If you read carefully, nowhere does the author suggest public funding for abortions. He defines very carefully a compromise, yes a compromise, that was put on the table for patient co-payments instead of government funds, which was rejected by the Bishops. Thus, the author's contention that the Church is being narrow, single minded and willing to sacrifice the common good because of their inability to compromise is a reasonable conclusion.
You know, after I wrote that, I realized that "public funding of baby killing" was inaccurate. "Indirect subsidizing of baby killing" would be more accurate.
What you and Mr. Carroll fail to comprehend (for reasons I cannot begin to fathom) is that it's the BABY KILLING part the Church has a problem with, not the accounting tricks used to obscure the role public funds may play.
I say it every time it comes up: they're not babies until they're born. The 'baby-killer' rhetoric is a dog-whistle that makes most folks plug their ears.
Blastocyst > Embryo > Fetus > BIRTH > Baby
It isn't murder and nobody loves it.
Oh, so now the federal government has to toe the line the Catholic Church dispenses, I don't think so, fenngibbon. As President Obama stated: This is a health bill, not an abortion bill.
The Catholic Church operates under a conscience clause. They receive federal funds. They are not obliged to participate in reproductive issues which the law allows, and which they oppose.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is in the interest of the common good to compromise, ergo the conscience clause extended to the Church.
If you want the Catholic Church to be the government in this country, go ahead and lobby for it, until that is the case the RCC is not the rule.
rusty, a baby traveling 6 inches is not what determines if its a baby or whatever it is you want to call it to ease your guilt.
rustywheeler:
"I say it every time it comes up: they're not babies until they're born."
So my brother, born at 7 months, was a baby 8 months after conception, whereas I, born at 9 months, wasn't a baby at 8 months after conception.
Somehow, it's not comforting to know that you place human life in the same category as real estate: location, location, location.
fenngibbon: you answered your own question. He was BORN.
Your real stance is that a God places a soul into the egg when the sperm goes in-and that no woman has the right to undo what God Does-and no empirical observation supports this.
You and your ilk also consistently imply that women who 'want' abortions are morally bankrupt and indifferent toward life itself. Read this and explain it to me again.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-pers onal-holoprosencephaly.html
rustywheeler
Did you see the video on A Sullivan's site last September of the couple who so generously and heartbreakingly shared their video diary regarding the birth of their child who was so seriously ill that they knew it would not live past a week, but chose to deliver the baby. I wish I had the link, do you know of that one?
cheenthere: I do remember. I think it's commendable. I also think it's salient that they were able to choose their course of action. The larger point he makes is that this choice is always personal and excruciating, never political and easy.
It isn't murder and nobody loves it.
Really, rustywheeler? Location trumps all?
So... the rustywheeler refers to the gears in what passes for your brain?
Thank you rusty. It is a ploy they're taught to use, thinking it will shock us. You are SO correct. Nobody loves it and it is not murder.
Maybe you are right rusty, maybe I expect too much from people. I would have hoped it would inspire compassion for anyone (not just this couple and their particular circumstance) who face the difficult decision in regard to abortion, and also inspire respect for the choice that people make. I was not making any judgment on what this particular couple did at all.See my other posts.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before i formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and befor thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.....
Good comments "cbeenthere", I agree with you that Mr. Carroll makes some excellent points. I have been reading Mr. Carroll's books and comments in the Boston Globe and on this site for a while now. I believe that some of this abortion push is part of those "Republican Catholic Church Leaders" whose hate for the Democrats and President Obama so great that they will go to any length to destroy this administration. Many fabrication have been spread on "Catholic news sites" since Obama won the Democratic nomination for President. This emphasis on abortion and same sex marriage takes the minds of many Catholics off the recent scandal in the Church. Unfortunately, some of these same leaders were responsible for covering up the priest sexual adventures with many young people for years. Hopefully one of James Carrol's earnest desires is to see the Catholic Church have another Council to complete many of the ideas which were developed in Vatican II. We need to enter the 21st Century, not go back to the middle ages.
Kill a few to save many - the ends justify the means.
I am glad to see the author is willing to tell the Catholic church what is right & wrong.
If the church is successful in killing health care reform, galeso, another 45,000 uninsured Americans will die next year because they are too poor to afford life-saving medical treatment.
Somehow, I don't think this is what Jesus would do.
What to they care since altar boys don't get pregnant.
Dear fenngibbon,
Abortion isn't an issue to me like gay marriage is to you. If a society can't protect the lives all it's citizens than it's not much of a society. The lives of the unborn are just as human as you are and deserve respect and protection. Roe v Wade is completely outdated law and should be overturned. Can you imagine landing on planet earth and finding out it's accepted law to kill your own offspring if you choose to do so. The aliens would think we were a bunch of cavemen who had yet to develop a civilization.
They're not your offspring until they're sprung. Meaning, born. The unborn are not alive in the same sense that the born are alive.
What do you recall about your time in the womb?
Actually, rustywheeler, the latest research suggests that infants do start learning while still in the womb.
Not alive in the same sense that the born are alive? Explain what that means.
This is a very thoughtful and rather complete view of the thinking process as it truly exists in both the minds of Catholics and in Politics itself. I also heartily agree with Mr. Carroll that a greater lobbying effort ought to be made by the Catholic Bishops on the issue of our economic-recovery process and the grave injustices that have been imposed upon the poor and the middle class, while the wealthy have been once again mollycoddled at the Public Pork Barrel at the expense of the lower classes, who have had virtually no access whatsoever. These ideas have great moral merit.
Where I would gravely disagree with Mr. Carroll is on the issue of Abortion itself. With today's modern technology being what it is, there is simply a lesser reason for any person to have an abortion. Between birth control pills, the shot, condoms, and the like, there is barely a chance that anyone should ever become pregnant by any other means than simply choice, or grave carelessness, both of which become less excuseable given the state of technology in today's world. The obvious exceptions were mentioned in the House Bill and included the issues of Rape, Incest or the endangerment of the life of the mother.
Still all of this makes abortion a less excusable offense. Thirty years ago that simply wasn't the case. Most people argued then that 'it' wasn't alive, so what is the harm? That was a real and genuine argument at the time, the Church then insisting loudly "No! It is alive!", but nobody listened. Those arguments have gone the way of the horse and carriage with the ready availablity of Sonogram Machines and the reactions people have to seeing a baby in the womb. These technologies didn't exist 30 years ago and people were more skeptical then that the fetus was truly alive. Now they can see with their own eyes. This does make a very big difference. The greatest part of Morality in Catholic Life is the known and unknown sin. Knowing now what we do know about the existence of life, the idea being rather universally held, and from Science no less, that life begins at conception changes the moral responsibility for those who engage in the practice of abortion and with that also a greater and far more severe moral consequence to their souls.
To simplify, two evils were present: continued abortion, and poor health care. The legislation proposed to cure one, but not the other, so they opposed it. This is silly; fix evils where you can, and worry about the others when you have the resources/consensus to do so. Absolutism doesn't get you anywhere, even if you agree that abortion is evil.
Mr. Carroll: Standing up for human life is fundamental--if ones church will not obey and promote "thou shalt not kill' then they're a bunch of hypocrites. How you can call THE most basic stand a church or person can take--the preservation of human life-- the agenda of 'fringe' types shows there is something very wrong with you.
The Church's stand on life is extended to the fetus but not to the death penalty or to war. If the Church treasured life they would be willing to save people from suffering and death by encouraging passage of the health care reform bill. Chrisitans should not pick and chose when the right to life is important. If the Church was really opposed to killing, it would forbid all Catholics to join the military and oppose the death penalty.
The church does oppose the death penalty.
True, but abortion has overshadowed the issue of capital punishment, reproductive issues consume the Church today.
The Catholics do many things, but when has the media (right or left wing) mentioned the 8.5 million helped by Catholic Charities? Or the people educated by Catholic Universities? How many hospitals do they run? So they do some goofy things also.
Does anyone think they oppose health care? I think they strongly support it, with definite restrictions.
galeso-
Wouldn't you think that the RCC would have poverty licked by now after centuries attending to that problem, perhaps they love poverty, but not the poor*.
*rr
cheen
careful there, that sounds like language the right uses against the anti poverty programs of the dems.
anonimom - Can you state unequivocally that there are no Catholic's in the military?
AMEN.
It doesn't surprise me that you would put that spin on it jus1dun, not at all.
But, actually, jus-
Welfare is a way of regulating the poor, and that is a Republican thing, so they can say anything they want. Without the poor there would be no rich.
Yeah, and God sucks too. That guy is WAAAY into abortions, according to actual medical research.
Oh, and didn't Jesus walk into the temple, see it being used as a bazaar, and literally turn over tables and whip those sitting at them doing business to drive them out. The Bible says this was a demonstration of "Zeal for Your house consumes me".--a GOOD THINGS.
RIGHT ON.
We need more of that about such matters, starting with zeal to protect human life. You try to turn that zeal into somehtig dirty by calling it "slash and burn fanaticism". Another unbelieving person who hasnt a clue about what it means to be devoted and that devotion and zeal are good things when directed towards saving lives etc. I am sure you would really appreciate such zeal from your doctors if you found yourself in an emergency room after a massive heart attack. Im sure youd like them to strive to save your life with all the slash and burn fanaticism they could muster.
A human life does extend past the birth canal, something many pro-lifers seem to be forgetting. The stance is extremely hypocritical.
If the Catholic church wishes to delve into the arena of politics it is a pay to play game and they better start paying taxes or slither back into their holes.
amen. Catholics can and have done substantial good, but like the article points out, their cave does go a little too deep in places.
Absolutely true!
Yeah, it is about time that they pay taxes on all their profits.
What? You say they do not turn a profit? Then tax them on the profits they should be earning.
Pure delusion. You would be cheering for the church if it were advocating for the health care plan. You have no problem when the Catholic bishops were strongly advocating amnesty for illegal aliens. You have no problem with them for the support they show for the health bill now. You only have a problem when they disagree with you.
"If the Catholic church wishes to delve into the arena of politics it is a pay to play game and they better start paying taxes or slither back into their holes."
Not only pay taxes, but refuse tax dollars to run their 'Catholic' charities.
Great; just ignore his point and repeat his complaint. You obviously don't care a damn about the greater good of society including the welfare of their souls.
Onward ye Christian (?) soldiers; off to war etc etc. what a bunch of hypocrites.
How many men women and children bombing victims did you condone with your "thou shalt not kill"?
Anyone who stops the greater good for a narrow objective hasn't got their head screwed on straight.
Keep your religion (fanaticism) out of my law; might as well be sharia law by any other name.
"how many women and children bombing victims did you condone . . ."
Who do you mean by you? It seems to me that you are blaming all Christians for every act of war... Interesting stance, perhaps you are the one without your head on straight.
This narrow-minded argument is not just confined to the Catholics but to many Chrisitian abortion opponents. However, the Church goes further by banning all methods of birth control and it views the life of the unborn more important than that of the mother.
On the flip side, the Church has no problem with the death penalty and war. The Church blindly encourages large families without any thought to their health and welfare. It has discouraged the use of condoms in Africa to combat AIDS.
It is frustrating to realize that the Catholic bishops can continue to be involved in American politics and retain its tax-exempt status.
Precisely. Their continued fight against condoms in Africa is a perfect example of how they remain fundamentally an evil organisation. I use that term in the biblical sense, and toward the organisation not it's many followers.
Sure they don't commit crimes of torture, rape (well, not overtly), genocide, ethnic cleansing and corruption (again, not overtly) anymore, but to expect one of the most successful criminal enterprises of the last millennia to become a force for good is ridiculous, regardless of what their mission statement is.
Actually, the rape thing WAS overt. Many, many priest were able to rape little boys and get sent to other locations to do it again and again and again. . . .
And this was certainly NOT in the past. It is undoubtedly still happening as we're posting.
well muslims encourage jihad. killing of the infidels and lets not forget honer killing.
give me a brake Catholics aren't the enemy.
While I believe that the Church's stress on a single issue clouds it's understanding of the whole - there are tiny errors in your comment that I suspect you do not realize.
1. The Church does not, "... view the life of the unborn more important than that of the mother."
The Church believes the life of both are equal so that a direct (note carefully the word 'direct') abortion many not be performed to 'save the life' of the mother.
Treatment of the future mother that may indirectly result in the death of the fetus is permitted.
2. The Church has great problems with the death penalty but once again too many Cardinals/Bishops are caught up in the single issue --- basically anything having to do with 'below the waist' to worry about little things like social justice or wars of choice.
And very honestly to many of them really do not wish to acknowledge the Teaching of the Church concerning all things 'life.' Let's face reality - the US Catholic Leadership is generally more Republcan that Democrat in its philosophy.
The Church teaches that the death penalty is permitted under very specific conditions - none of which seem to exist in today's world when a person can be separated (as in jail) for the duration of his/her life so as to not be a danger to the general population. Simply put, 'Frying the Guy is no longer needed."
I understand that thess are small things compared to all the flat out lies that are being told but it does help to be accurate.
Gee Aslanleon-
Didn't China just hand over a big bunch of money to Africa? Yes, I think so.
Go to Africa and see who actually educates most of the people, maintains hospitals for them, and so on. Without the Catholic and Protestant churches, Africa would be far poorer and sicker.
The Church views life as a gift from God not to be messed with by humans, hence their opposition to abortion and birth control. The Church also doesn't approve of artificial means of inducing pregnancy such as in vitro fertilization, by the way, for the same reason.
As for the death penalty and war, I don't know what planet you're from, but the Church most certainly does have problems with both. The Church doesn't take as absolutist a position on those issues as they do on abortion on the grounds that it recognizes that there may be (extremely few) cases where those actions are necessary to prevent a greater evil. What Carroll and a number of the posters here fail to comprehend is that the evil of a lack of universal health care doesn't outweigh the evil of the killing of innocents.
How does the Church "blindly" encourage large families without any thought to their health and welfare?
And as for condoms and AIDS, I think the reasoning behind the pope's position is a lot more sophisticated than the position of those who attack him.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/111-53.0.html
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
The Catholic Church Bishops worship at the feet of fetus and have pushed God aside. It has become a cult rather than a religion. I can think of nothing the CC Bishops have done in the last 3 decade except worship fetus. I would have thought that the Bishops would have worked hard to get prenatal care, post natal care, material health care but instead they are being lead by men who have for centuries been willing to risk the health of woman. Americans should reject this line of thinking and stand up for a woman's access to all health care
I agree.The catholic church is a sham as lotto1 intones if you stick to the teachings in the old testament praying to Jesus, Mary or any saints is going against the bible you know craven images false gods and the like.
The Catholic Church holds to the principles of "life begins at conception" and that life ends when "God naturally takes it away."
Someone in an earlier post says that they support war and capital punishment which is not correct.
Abortion is one of the RCC's many issues about which they're passionate, but abortion is the one that's always being thrown front and center.
If you believe that life begins at conception, then killing a fetus at any point is murder, so you don't accept compromise.
If the Daily Beast was around in the 1860s, would you all be ripping the abolitionists because they didn't have any real plans for the slaves once they were free? People don't like to compare the pro-life and the abolitionist movement, but they both revolve on solving one problem that the proponent saw as vastly unjust. Were abolitionists "single issue voters"? Some were, because they felt like that problem had to be solved before the country could move forward. Whether you agree with the pro-life views or not, I hope you all can see that this quite similar to what's happening now.
>> Brendino, you make good sense, I'm with you on those thoughts. The people who are upset just don't want to get it because it goes against their pro-choice position. I'm sure a strong pro-choice person would not vote for a political canidate whose pro-life. I'm sure a person who believes in global-warming would not vote for a candidate who believes the earth is doing just fine. The day has come where the church can't stand on it's principles.
what happened to the separation of church and state and with the many problems in the catholic church today they don't have to worry about birth they use little boys
James Carroll: the Catholic Church, whose leadership has fallen into the trap of single-issue moralism.
Catholic bishops were prepared to kill the health-care reform bill in the House last week over abortion ... Abortion is a moral question that carries special gravity for Catholics, a universal right to quality health care, which the bishops have supported for years is another,
Slash-and-burn single-mindedness is fanatic. Hence the excluding absolutism on the abortion question. Hence the dangerous exacerbation of the worst trends in American public life.
Mr, Carroll, obviously you are not Catholic and have no respect for human life or the teachings of the Catholic Church. The sanctity of life is of supreme concern to the church, a priority set by a higher power. Who are you to criticize representative of the church anyway? Why don't you chastise Islam? The radicals Muslims have no problem with the taking of lives. I have a greater respect for the Church having steadfastly held to her teachings.
As far as the belief that universal healthcare is a right, I disagree when the Church delegates the responsibility to the self-serving, corrupt, dysfunctional government for providing such right. The strings attached and the control over the people resulting violates the premise, give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is Gods.
Our government is based on the individual right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Our government was instituted to protect these creator given rights, to protect them from encroachments of other people and entities, not facilitate such encroachments by forcing us to pay for decisions and priorities of others regarding healthcare or insurance or any other issue. The Church is the proper entity to provide for those in need, so that I can choose to give and not pay alms to the corrupt government enforced by the IRS.
Jefferson in his 1779 Bill for Religious Liberty wrote "that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."
One most certainly can be a Catholic and disagree with the actions of the Church.
All citizens are under the obligation to contribute to the functioning of the government and we all benefit.
Im clapping, Thank you, well said
Well said, sir, and unanswerable.
Until someone-anyone-can provide empirical evidence that a SOUL enters the zygote at the moment of conception, American couples should be allowed to make excruciating choices. Your religious convictions should not dictate public policy. We all pay taxes and we all live here. When you support the end of all faith-based initiatives, your screed will ring true.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-pers onal-holoprosencephaly.html
And you believe you are to say when life begins? A baby grows in the womb and at some point it comes out, sometimes early and sometimes late, but just because it has changed locations it somehow passes some magic threshhold into life? Do you even know what soul means?
Ok, I'm not Catholic or even particularly religious, so maybe I'm not understanding the argument correctly - but doesn't the evil of murder do more damage to the soul than health care reform does good? Isn't that the point that the Pope is trying to make about looking at the whole person - that the health of the soul is as important as the health of the body? I don't necessarily believe this, but it doesn't seem like a fringe argument that's inconsistant with the basic beliefs of the Church.
Thank you.
It isn't murder, and nobody loves it.
You can repeat this as much as you like and you still won't prove anything, except that you've got a problem with reading comprehension and that maybe you're kind of a jerk. Scientists admit they've got no clue as to how, why or when identity emerges. The arguments over what is life and when does it start are all based on faith, no matter which side one is on, and that includes your argument. And, it's not up to you to dictate who people want to love.
Instead of hurting & helping to kill 40,000,000. people by stopping health reform why not concentrate of keeping little boys safe from sexual assault from your priests......
This is another example of what is really important to the church, the heck with the millions of people who suffer daily until they die because they can not get health coverage, nooooo don't think of them, don't use your clout to not only lobby for them but to lobby for complete & total health coverage for everyone because that is what areal religion would do, CARE ABOUT PEOPLE, no bring up a subject you know will STOP the bill in it's tracts... Good job all of you who cover up for the boy child attacks, good job now spitting on the poor & going broke among us, keep up the good work & keep the cover up going of your priests, the ones that molest children, that's more important than the health & welfare of millions of people....
Martyz42, All you have just shown is that you are capable of spewing a hateful tirade.
I suggest you rent and watch the film "Deliver us from Evil" -- it's all about the 1,000's of children molested by Catholic priests...and how the Catholic church continues to cover up institutionalized paedophilia. They tried to make it an "only fringe/gay priests do this issue" when the fact is 95% of children abused by priests are little girls...Just more smoke and mirrors by this self-absorbed, corrupt, morally-bankrupt organization.
Hey prickly - how about responding to Martyz42's claims instead of judging him? Hey, I think if your Catholic you're not SUPPOSED to judge your brother.
I do have to say, however you feel about the issue, saying BAWWW PRIESTS MOLEST BOYS HUUUR DUURRRR doesn't really refute the points people are making. It sounds really weak minded and foolish.
You do know that priests are LESS likely to be molesters than the general population, don't you?
Is that supposed to MEAN something Aslanleon? What is your point exactly? Where are your sources?
Basically you just said "I know you are, but what am I?" Childish statement in the extreme.
And just for good measure, priests GET AWAY WITH RAPING LITTLE BOYS. They got sent to other parish's and repeated the behavior. Let me know if you want links/proof of that.
Aslanleon: You do know that KNOWN priest-molesters are more likely to get legal cover from the Church than the general population, don't you?
The 10 Commandments are not the 10 Suggestions. Thou shalt not kill should not be hard to understand.
Spontaneous abortions happen all the time: therefore God kills babies. Your real stance is that He can do it (part of the Plan) and we cannot, ever, regardless of circumstances.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a commonplace moral imperative, extant in nearly every culture even before the arrival of the precious 10. Common sense, you might say.
"Thou shalt not kill" refers to ALL murder. Do you support the death penalty? Would you like me to send you a list of Catholics who do? Are there absolutely no Catholics in the military?
WEAK.
Has no jew ever enjoyed a non kosher hot dog?
amanda07070 - You're trying to call Christians hypocrites for generally being pro-life, because some of them support the death penalty and acts of war. So... If you support killing in one circumstance you must support killing in all circumstances? I don't have to explain how absurd that is. Your argument is, in fact, weak.
The world is divided between the lucky few and the miserable many, with everyone agreeing that there simply isn't enough to go around.
And whose fault is that?????? The Catholic Church is who is at fault. With their stone age birth control policies that don't apply to a world that's dying from excesses. They have promoted overpopulation, poverty,starvation and disease for years. They have the audacity to talk about life and claim they are promoting it???? What a laugh! It's one of the many hypocrisies that made me leave the church.
If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one. - Mother Teresa
Catholic Europe is declining in population, which is creating a major crisis in the economy. You're a little late with your crisis about overpopulation.
I have never liked the musings of one DB writer to preach the moral authority to the rest of us. Telling someone how to behave with conviction is nobody's business. I believe in the teachings of the bible and that is my right. I do not hold the right to tell someone else how to behave. I believe man tries to be decent no matter what political party they belong to and to continue this drum beat of "good moral judgement" just so we can pass a health care bill is immature and short sided.
*sighted
It seems to me that all sides are out "hunting bear" on this health care reform proposal. Where in any proposal, public or private, will an abortion procedure not be covered if it is for medical reasons? Isn't health care about the treatment of illnesses and diseases? Should pregnancy be redefined as an illness?
Shouldn't public be more concerned with covering catastrophic illnesses?
The real problem here as well as in DC is religion itself... We have the religious right Taliban in almost full control of the Confederate republicans, every time we hear a speech the speaker is forced to say "and may god bless America" for fear of being called a person with a brain...
Our money, our pledge, our courts, our Congress, our oaths of office are all FULL OF RELIGIOUS BS..... The whole "I swear to god thing is a farce, a joke, laughable at best & mostly dangerous in general....
In the middle east we have the Taliban doing their thing with all females. These evil Taliban actually demand that all females do as they preach, imagine that... Oh wait, seems to me that the religious right does the same thing here, they have put the females body into what they feel it is, a body that white men control... A female in the eyes of the religious right is a slave to what they believe it should be... Hmmm just like the Taliban, the jesus people are in fact the same as the Taliban....
We can go back to the beginning of written history & see that BILLIONS of people have been butchered maimed & killed in the name of this pretend god thing... We are not only talking about the crusades, Europe, in fact the world has been killing over this control thing called religion for ever.... These religious believers are nothing more than control starved dictators who live to control the simple minded among us who very sadly are the VAST majority.... People have evolved so far & yet their brains when it comes to religion are still in the stone ages... The thought of death is so strong that they will grasp anything that they can in order to find hope... The Muslims believe if they die while fighting & killing non believers they will go to their pretend god & it will give them 72 virgins (not sure a female who does the killing would want or get 72 male virgins) The jesus believe they will get to have dinner with their pretend god up in the stars & so on.... PEOPLE AS THEY SAY IN VALLEY TALK, "PLEASE GET A LIFE" & "PLEASE GET A LIFE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO THINK LIKE AN ADULT & NOT LIKE A SIMPLE MINDED CHILD"........
Right. People who are against killing babies are the equivalent of those who throw acid on girls going to school and murder their children over "honor."
You're a moron.
As for your Christopher-Hitchens-after-he's-been-hit-in-the-head-a-few-times argument about the death toll from religion, let's compare the butcher's bill from 3,000 years of religiously motivated violence versus 150 years of violence motivated by atheistic belief systems (namely, communism, fascism, and Nazism). While the former is a bit hard to figure, based on various estimates (1.2 million estimated deaths in the Bible, 7 million during the 30 Years War (even though not all of them can be attributed to religion), 5 million during the Crusades (and that's the high end; other sources say more like 1 million), etc.), 40 to 50 million would seem to be the upper cap (and even that would probably be an overestimation, as not all the deaths that occurred were religiously motivated). As for the number killed by the atheistic belief systems, the number has been put around 100 million overall. Maoism alone probably produced more corpses in 40 years than all those that can be laid at the feet of all religions over 3000 years.
Moreover, it's worth noting that, in the case of Christianity at least, the deaths inflicted in the name of religion violate that religion. In other words, when a Christian kills, they're not being very Christian, so it's rather unfair to blame Christianity.
"...when a Christian kills, they're not being very Christian, so it's rather unfair to blame Christianity."
Classic: it's never the fault of the beliefs, only of the believers.
"Classic: it's never the fault of the beliefs, only of the believers."
Curiously enough, when a belief system says "Thou shall not kill," and you kill, it's your fault, not the belief system.
Just out curiosity, do you blame Smokey the Bear for forest fires?
*YAWN* ..just another bible-thumper squawking "blah-blah-Hitler-and-Stalin!" Your post is VERBATIM from Vox Day's latest turd of a, dare I call it, book...sad when you can't defend your views except for by plagarism from one of the scabbarous, overwheening, ignorant tools on World Nut Daily.
rusty, even you must concede that fenngibbon's argument make logical sense.
Kate the Inane:
What the hell are you talking about? And what the hell is Vox Day?
Some idiot yammers on about how horrible religion is and all I'm doing is pointing out simple facts that can be looked up by anyone with a brain and sufficient motor control to operate a computer: The Nazis killed millions. The Communists killed millions. The pile of bodies that can be put at the feet of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. is a hell of a lot bigger than the pile that can be put at the feet of Jesus, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc., so carrying on abotu the barbarity of religion, as though without it humanity would be so wonderful and kind, is a load of crap.
And for the record, I'm not a bible-thumper. In fact, I generally hold them in contempt, but not as much contempt as I hold cretins like you.
Though I will give you and rustywheeler some credit to be able to change minds: after reading your inane posts, I'm tempted to rethink my position on both abortion and sterilization for the purposes of skimming the imbeciles out of the gene pool.
The Catholic Church is Not Pro-Life!
Now I'm not hatin on you followers of the faith, despite my doubts about religion in general.
Starting with the Crusades, moving into the Inquisitions, onto the acceptance of the Slave Trade, then the Holocaust, back to Africa, where conversion of faith is required before providing help and generally limiting the options of it's followers moral beliefs (not to mention the liberties it takes with YOUR young sons), the Catholic Church shows time and again that it is ANTI-LIFE and is only concerned with its powers over the world and not very concerned about people or their souls.
Bad history-- The entire inquisition killed around 20,000, less than Stalin did on a slow morning. The Crusades were a war between Moslems expanding their territory into previously Christian areas and Christians who wanted to push them back, the Church opposed the slave trade from the very beginning and both Popes and theologians spoke against it regularly, and the Church in Africa helped everybody and still does. You are basing your view on a seriously distorted history.
leon-
And how many people converted in the Inquisition so they would not be murdered? Please do fill us in on that aspect which you have chosen to omit so you can be big and bad and influence posters.
Killing the unborn wasn't what Jesus had in mind.
The Catholic Church has a moral mission? Not since before the Inquisition. Any little boys in the house?
Not one Catholic-defender on this post, NOT ONE have addressed the many references to the fact that priests got (and continue to get) away with raping young boys. SPEAKS VOLUMES.
I'm not a Catholic defender by any means, but I'd guess the reason no one's addressed your many references to sexual abuse is that this isn't what the article's about. But I'll agree with you that it's terrible and hypocritical and arrogant - and it undermines the moral authority the Church purports to have.
The problem is you use it as a single issue just like the article claims. Hell, I'm in no way catholic and i find the "alter boy" bit a tiresome piece of standup.
how can the bible ever meld with the mainstream? e.g., the pursuit of goods is the root of all evil? how many go to work everyday only to give away a lot of what they earn? (did jesus not say something like "if you want to be a disciple of mine, you must leave everything.) c'mon; the church has never been really popular and never will be.
On the other hand, it was the Catholic bishops who sent a press release telling the Republicans in Congress if they voted "present" for the Stupak Amendment, the church would count it as a vote of no (or for federal funding of abortions).. I'm sure they did this as a push to get a health care bill through. I'm pro choice and am sad about the amendment, but in a strange way it was the Catholic church who managed to get the health care bill passed, and that is more important.
Without the Republican votes for that amendment, it would not have passed, and the approx 15 anti choice democrats might not have voted for the reform bill.
Nancy Pelosi understood that all the Republican rhethoric was just politics and that the Republicans in Congress would be more concerned with being labeled as having voted for abortion funding, than they were about stopping health care reform.
Good move Catholic Bishops and thanks to whomever thought to call them in the first place!
I couldn't agree with him more, and am astounded at how successful religious leaders in the US have been at galvanizing people around this one issue and turning them into single-issue voter, regardless of what else is on the ticket. Taking care of people who were already born should be as important as taking care of fetuses.
Additionally, this issue hits closer to home now since I found out recently that my pregnancy of 3 months was not viable. While my life was not in immediate danger, we chose to terminate and I was incredibly relieved that I had that as a safe, quick, and painless option, so that my husband and I could more quickly heal and hopefully try again.
Pregnancy is a complicated process and these sorts of decisions should remain between patients, their families, and doctors. While I know that many people sadly have terminations voluntarily, think about the fact that it's not all black and white, as life rarely is...
Amen. For more, see
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-pers onal-holoprosencephaly.html
Amen to this article. I had to sit in chruch the other week and hear the visitng priest describe the health care reform bill as being "from the bowels of hell." Not one word about the poor, the sick, immigrants, etc. Apparently the policy is "we'll do everything possible to get you born, then you're on your own." Life is precious to the church as long as it makes no demands on society, I guess. Wouldn't Christ be proud?
LOL on the policy! Yeah, what would Jesus think about his religion becoming stuck to the right?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.