I have often been accused of being "Jesuitical" in my way of thinking. I say "accused" because those who observed this about me were not being complimentary. Not at all. I used to be rather ashamed of this fact about myself, as I do think it is an accurate observation. As I have entered midlife, though, I have chosen to embrace it.
So, here we go.
I was thinking about the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis. This has some people wringing their hands and others jumping for joy. But -- let us remember -- the Pope is a Jesuit. And I'm wondering if the Pope pulled a Jesuit "fast one."
I am probably going to get a phone call from the Vatican because of this blog post, telling me that I am ALL WRONG. That's okay. It would be sort of cool to get a phone call from the Vatican. And I still think that what I have to say might be worth considering, even if it's not a Slick Jesuit Papal Maneuver.
I was reading the NPR article on the Pope's visit with Kim. (I just love NPR, don't you? They are always so calm and professional. I also love Ezra Klein on Vox. He is witty and hilarious and sort of a sexy nerd. But, I digress.) In this article, I noticed that the Pope used the term "conscientious objection" when discussing his visit with Kim. This is very interesting to me. VERY interesting.
I grew up during the time of the Vietnam War, and there were many conscientious objectors. My parents and their group of friends were rather divided on the validity of being a conscientious objector. Most of them thought that these individuals were, basically, unpatriotic cowards. Some of them, though, admired the values and courage of the "peaceniks." I once dated a guy -- for a little while -- who had been a conscientious objector. I decided that it was probably a good thing he had been thus, because he basically couldn't seem to stay awake. EVER. The dude would have been a very poor soldier. I would not have wanted to go into battle with this dude. He did have a cool car, though. And he helped me on a limnology project that I basically would have failed without his assistance. After said project, I never saw him again. I suppose traipsing around all those bodies of fresh water convinced him that I was MUCH too energetic for him. (OMG. I am digressing SO much today!)
Let's think, though, about conscientious objectors. In Vietnam, anyway, they were excused from the draft. I guess some of them did non-combat jobs. But, NONE of them performed the duties to which they objected. Why? Because they were excused/dismissed from the job which entailed those duties, meaning they were excused/dismissed from the job of being a soldier.
And this is the point. A conscientious objector was not allowed to become a soldier and then decide -- according to his conscience -- which of his duties he was going to perform and which of his duties he was not going to perform. Either he was in. Or he was out. And if he wanted to conscientiously object, he was OUT.
This is relevant to the case of Kim Davis. If she wants to hold the job that she has been holding, she needs to do that job. ALL of that job. As in the case of the soldier, she does not get to decide which duties she approves of and which she is going to abstain from. That kind of thinking brings chaos and anarchy. We would soon be a country resembling Gotham, if everybody got to do that. (Have you been watching the new season of "Gotham"? It is INCREDIBLE. They totally gave it a face lift from last year's season. And -- yes -- I have digressed again.) So, if the law has changed and Kim conscientiously objects to it, that is her human right. As the Pope stated. But, I bet the Pope is clever enough to realize that a conscientious objector needs to be excused -- or excuse himself/herself -- from the job to which he/she objects. Just as the soldier does not get to define his role, neither does Miss Kim. Perhaps this is the Pope's indirect and understated -- but, very Jesuitically clear -- message. And even if it's not his message, it's mine. ;-)
Now, I do think Miss Davis is a decent lady. She has basically been emotionally hijacked by and made a pawn of religious right-wingers. So, I kind of hope that the county for which she has worked will find her a new position that is both amenable to her conscience and provides for her needs. Do I think it's necessary for the county to do this? No, I don't. But, I think it would be decent. She probably won't need another job, though, because she's probably going to make a lot of money off the right-wingers. You know? With public appearances and podcasts and a YouTube channel and a book. There will probably even be a movie made about her by a certain university with which I am acquainted. Maybe I'm being cynical. I don't know.
Pax. :-)
Showing posts with label the Catholic Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Catholic Church. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Saturday, January 4, 2014
The Church Usually Figures It Out
Figures what out?
How to cope with curve balls.
The Church has had to cope with many curve balls -- like Galileo, for example. And Protestantism and Democracy and evolution and public schools and the Hippies and inter-faith marriages and many other things.
And -- after stepping all over herself for a while and leaving some messes in her wake -- she learns to act graciously. Usually, anyway.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse her messes. In fact, one of my favorite things that Pope John Paul II did was make a grand apology for all her screw-ups through the ages.
Sometimes, when I think of the Church, I see in my mind an aircraft carrier trying to navigate a narrow, swiftly moving river. And this does not always go well.
As I was growing up, my father used to tell stories of the "old days" in the Church (a.k.a. when he was growing up). He attended Catholic schools through high school, and was taught by many old-time Irish nuns and priests. He said that the nuns instructed them to make the Sign Of The Cross when passing a Protestant church, because "the devil was in there." It was also quite frowned upon to attend a Protestant wedding, and it was pretty much forbidden to attend the wedding of a Catholic marrying outside of the Church (and God help you if you were actually a member of the wedding party). You were also never, EVER allowed to attend a Protestant church service, for any reason. And divorced Catholics had to wait for years and years for their annulments to become finalized. This happened to one of my aunts. She had been married at 16 or 17. That marriage did not last. She then met my uncle, but they dated for over five years because of the length of time it took for her annulment to go through. For Catholic women who had abortions, things were quite hairy. Just going to Confession wasn't considered adequate. There was some long, involved, clerical process one had to go through in order to be fully reconciled with the Church. This is no longer the case (at least in America.) All priests have been given the authority to absolve women who confess abortion. Now, some of you might get mad at this, as you believe women shouldn't have to feel guilty about having abortions. But, my point is that -- out of mercy and a desire to show Christ-like love -- the Church decided that women shouldn't have to undergo a rather humiliating process in order to be considered formally forgiven for what the Church does consider to be a serious sin. And my general point is that as new phenomena occur in our culture -- phenomena that the Church considers to be, shall we say, "problematic" -- the words and actions and attitudes which emanate from the hierarchy can tend to be rather harsh and seemingly insensitive. Then, over time, out of merciful love, the Church kind of "changes its tune," if you will. Words and attitudes and actions become gentler and more charitable.
I understand that this is not enough for many people. There are those who wish the Church would actually change her actual teachings regarding such things as the all-male priesthood and contraception and same-sex marriage. To be honest, I don't think the Church is EVER going to change her teachings in these areas, because they are based on a theology of the Trinity and a certain philosophy of Natural Law that's not going to change.
I personally don't have an issue with having an all-male priesthood. I know there are many who do, because they feel that this means that women are left out of key decision-making positions in the Church, that their voices aren't heard or acknowledged. And I understand this. There are times when I have felt this way. One thing that encourages me is that Pope Francis seems to get this, also, and has spoken of developing a more formal Theology of Woman in order to begin to address the legitimate concerns of women who are both inside and outside of the Church.
Concerning the issue of contraception, the Church has also softened her voice over the years. No, contraception is not "approved of" theologically, but people who practice it -- especially married couples in difficult situations -- aren't treated harshly (in my experience, at least). There are no "witch hunts," no midnight condom raids, no threat of excommunication if you are on The Pill. Of course, the Church does exhort and teach about this issue. There are some good reasons -- in my opinion, anyway -- why the Church views contraception negatively. I would encourage you, if you haven't already, to read "Humanae Vitae." I would ask you to consider what this document says, if you feel there is any wisdom contained therein. This is what we call, in Catholic circles, "informing your conscience." You are still free, in the end, to make up your own mind.
Same-sex marriage is probably the most recent curve-ball thrown the Church's way. And her reaction to this cultural phenomenon has caused much hurt amongst LGBT people. For example, having your marriage and family described as a "danger" to our society would probably be painful. I think, though, that as the reality of having same-sex couples and their children in our communities sinks in, the Church will recognize the need to behave graciously toward them, to not inflict suffering on them by using rather incendiary language to describe their relationships and family lives, and to extend Christ's love to them. There is a saint (I forget which one) who said something to the effect that, when all is said and done, it is "important to get along with one's neighbor." And the Church, usually and eventually, comes around to that.
How to cope with curve balls.
The Church has had to cope with many curve balls -- like Galileo, for example. And Protestantism and Democracy and evolution and public schools and the Hippies and inter-faith marriages and many other things.
And -- after stepping all over herself for a while and leaving some messes in her wake -- she learns to act graciously. Usually, anyway.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse her messes. In fact, one of my favorite things that Pope John Paul II did was make a grand apology for all her screw-ups through the ages.
Sometimes, when I think of the Church, I see in my mind an aircraft carrier trying to navigate a narrow, swiftly moving river. And this does not always go well.
As I was growing up, my father used to tell stories of the "old days" in the Church (a.k.a. when he was growing up). He attended Catholic schools through high school, and was taught by many old-time Irish nuns and priests. He said that the nuns instructed them to make the Sign Of The Cross when passing a Protestant church, because "the devil was in there." It was also quite frowned upon to attend a Protestant wedding, and it was pretty much forbidden to attend the wedding of a Catholic marrying outside of the Church (and God help you if you were actually a member of the wedding party). You were also never, EVER allowed to attend a Protestant church service, for any reason. And divorced Catholics had to wait for years and years for their annulments to become finalized. This happened to one of my aunts. She had been married at 16 or 17. That marriage did not last. She then met my uncle, but they dated for over five years because of the length of time it took for her annulment to go through. For Catholic women who had abortions, things were quite hairy. Just going to Confession wasn't considered adequate. There was some long, involved, clerical process one had to go through in order to be fully reconciled with the Church. This is no longer the case (at least in America.) All priests have been given the authority to absolve women who confess abortion. Now, some of you might get mad at this, as you believe women shouldn't have to feel guilty about having abortions. But, my point is that -- out of mercy and a desire to show Christ-like love -- the Church decided that women shouldn't have to undergo a rather humiliating process in order to be considered formally forgiven for what the Church does consider to be a serious sin. And my general point is that as new phenomena occur in our culture -- phenomena that the Church considers to be, shall we say, "problematic" -- the words and actions and attitudes which emanate from the hierarchy can tend to be rather harsh and seemingly insensitive. Then, over time, out of merciful love, the Church kind of "changes its tune," if you will. Words and attitudes and actions become gentler and more charitable.
I understand that this is not enough for many people. There are those who wish the Church would actually change her actual teachings regarding such things as the all-male priesthood and contraception and same-sex marriage. To be honest, I don't think the Church is EVER going to change her teachings in these areas, because they are based on a theology of the Trinity and a certain philosophy of Natural Law that's not going to change.
I personally don't have an issue with having an all-male priesthood. I know there are many who do, because they feel that this means that women are left out of key decision-making positions in the Church, that their voices aren't heard or acknowledged. And I understand this. There are times when I have felt this way. One thing that encourages me is that Pope Francis seems to get this, also, and has spoken of developing a more formal Theology of Woman in order to begin to address the legitimate concerns of women who are both inside and outside of the Church.
Concerning the issue of contraception, the Church has also softened her voice over the years. No, contraception is not "approved of" theologically, but people who practice it -- especially married couples in difficult situations -- aren't treated harshly (in my experience, at least). There are no "witch hunts," no midnight condom raids, no threat of excommunication if you are on The Pill. Of course, the Church does exhort and teach about this issue. There are some good reasons -- in my opinion, anyway -- why the Church views contraception negatively. I would encourage you, if you haven't already, to read "Humanae Vitae." I would ask you to consider what this document says, if you feel there is any wisdom contained therein. This is what we call, in Catholic circles, "informing your conscience." You are still free, in the end, to make up your own mind.
Same-sex marriage is probably the most recent curve-ball thrown the Church's way. And her reaction to this cultural phenomenon has caused much hurt amongst LGBT people. For example, having your marriage and family described as a "danger" to our society would probably be painful. I think, though, that as the reality of having same-sex couples and their children in our communities sinks in, the Church will recognize the need to behave graciously toward them, to not inflict suffering on them by using rather incendiary language to describe their relationships and family lives, and to extend Christ's love to them. There is a saint (I forget which one) who said something to the effect that, when all is said and done, it is "important to get along with one's neighbor." And the Church, usually and eventually, comes around to that.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Pope Francis "The Upstart"
In my family, we have been talking a bit about the new Pope. He has been doing and saying some interesting things -- things that piss some people off, that make others happy, that mystify many. He seems to be going in some new directions. For example, he washed the feet of women when he was first elected, breaking with tradition. He spoke of how atheists can go to Heaven. He said that gay people must not be marginalized, and even seemed to accept the idea of gay men being ordained to the priesthood. And these things make a lot of folks wonder what he is up to.
This is what I think.
First of all, I don't think he is doing anything that is out-of-step with Church teaching, if you really read the Catechism (and the New Testament).
What I think he is doing is reminding us of the true spirit of Christianity, of how Christ actually behaved -- things that some in the Church seem to have forgotten. Why have they forgotten it? The last couple of Popes, who I also truly loved, saw a Church that had begun to lose a lot of its tradition -- in the liturgy, in religious orders, in moral and social teachings, for example. These Popes, of happy memory, reminded us of those things, which was very good. But, in so doing, a division started to creep into the Church, a division which had probably always been there, but which became exacerbated. What division? The division between the more conservative Catholics and the more liberal Catholics. It is almost like these two groups don't even accept each other as true Catholics; there is a lot of looking down the nose at one group by the other. My husband, for example, told me that he heard a rather conservative Catholic commentator describe people "who are in the pews, but not in the Church." EXCUSE ME??? If your fellow baptized Catholic is sitting next to you in the pews, and has not been excommunicated by the Pope, you really shouldn't be talking that way about him. Or her. And even if he/she is excommunicated, he/she is still a baptized Catholic. On the other side of the coin, I once told a more liberal Catholic that I really love the Latin Mass and she acted like I had said the "black mass." There has also been more and more talk about a "Culture War." There has been much feeling amongst Catholics who view themselves as following the right path that they cannot work with, socialize with, live in the same neighborhoods as, or even pleasantly get along with people of differing points of view or of different lifestyles, because they are afraid of compromising their faith. And because they feel uncomfortable around these different types of people.
I think Pope Francis sees these things. And he sees the way the Church blew it in regard to priestly abuse. And he sees the other ways in which the Church has made various groups of people -- like women and homosexuals -- feel marginalized. In short, he sees the many sins and shortcomings of the Church and its clergy and its people. And he is trying to lead us forward. If we look at his example, if we truly and prayerfully look at it, I believe that we can begin to heal the rifts in the Church, we can help people to see how Jesus truly does love and accept them right where they are, and we can end the Culture War. Because even though we need to have societal discussions about many issues, a "war" probably isn't the best way to go about things. It will just leave the "defeated" feeling rebellious and plotting their uprising, while the "victors" go about gloating and maybe even oppressing. Which is what victors in a war tend to do, albeit (perhaps) unintentionally.
Yes, I think Pope Francis, with God's help, can bring many good things about in the Church. He seems to have great faith, he seems to be a man of genuine humility, and -- last, but not least -- he is the first Pope in a long time that regular people can actually understand. ;-)
This is what I think.
First of all, I don't think he is doing anything that is out-of-step with Church teaching, if you really read the Catechism (and the New Testament).
What I think he is doing is reminding us of the true spirit of Christianity, of how Christ actually behaved -- things that some in the Church seem to have forgotten. Why have they forgotten it? The last couple of Popes, who I also truly loved, saw a Church that had begun to lose a lot of its tradition -- in the liturgy, in religious orders, in moral and social teachings, for example. These Popes, of happy memory, reminded us of those things, which was very good. But, in so doing, a division started to creep into the Church, a division which had probably always been there, but which became exacerbated. What division? The division between the more conservative Catholics and the more liberal Catholics. It is almost like these two groups don't even accept each other as true Catholics; there is a lot of looking down the nose at one group by the other. My husband, for example, told me that he heard a rather conservative Catholic commentator describe people "who are in the pews, but not in the Church." EXCUSE ME??? If your fellow baptized Catholic is sitting next to you in the pews, and has not been excommunicated by the Pope, you really shouldn't be talking that way about him. Or her. And even if he/she is excommunicated, he/she is still a baptized Catholic. On the other side of the coin, I once told a more liberal Catholic that I really love the Latin Mass and she acted like I had said the "black mass." There has also been more and more talk about a "Culture War." There has been much feeling amongst Catholics who view themselves as following the right path that they cannot work with, socialize with, live in the same neighborhoods as, or even pleasantly get along with people of differing points of view or of different lifestyles, because they are afraid of compromising their faith. And because they feel uncomfortable around these different types of people.
I think Pope Francis sees these things. And he sees the way the Church blew it in regard to priestly abuse. And he sees the other ways in which the Church has made various groups of people -- like women and homosexuals -- feel marginalized. In short, he sees the many sins and shortcomings of the Church and its clergy and its people. And he is trying to lead us forward. If we look at his example, if we truly and prayerfully look at it, I believe that we can begin to heal the rifts in the Church, we can help people to see how Jesus truly does love and accept them right where they are, and we can end the Culture War. Because even though we need to have societal discussions about many issues, a "war" probably isn't the best way to go about things. It will just leave the "defeated" feeling rebellious and plotting their uprising, while the "victors" go about gloating and maybe even oppressing. Which is what victors in a war tend to do, albeit (perhaps) unintentionally.
Yes, I think Pope Francis, with God's help, can bring many good things about in the Church. He seems to have great faith, he seems to be a man of genuine humility, and -- last, but not least -- he is the first Pope in a long time that regular people can actually understand. ;-)
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The Pope And The Atheists
I read with great interest that Pope Francis spoke recently about the relationship of Christianity with atheists, stating (in a nutshell) that atheists could certainly be saved. How? By their good works.
Did this surprise me? No. It is what I have always been taught.
Did it surprise a lot of people? Yes.
If you think about it Biblically, though, it is logical. Read the story of the Good Samaritan, if you don't believe me. Jesus was basically giving a smack-down to all the self-righteous "religious" people.
A lot of atheists, though, appeared to be offended by the Pope's remarks. Perhaps it felt to them as though the Catholic Church was commenting on their beliefs and lives in a manner that was both uninvited and unwanted. I can understand this. It's probably sort of like when I heard that Mormons baptize people without said people being present and without the consent of those people. I wouldn't want that. And maybe the atheists resent us Catholics trying to "save" them. Maybe they view it as an insult to their own intelligence, free-will, and world-view.
There may be another thing going on here, though. And it is something that should cause us Catholics and other types of Christians to do some reflecting. Are we behaving in such a way so as to cause atheists to say, "Why in the name of God, who I don't believe in anyway, would I want to spend an eternity in a place locked up with you prideful, judgmental, mean-spirited, unaccepting people?" They are probably imagining themselves stuck at a banquet table, eternally flanked by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Rick Perry. Not something that is especially appealing to me, either. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we are building bridges to God, and not obstacles (another thing Pope Francis spoke about recently). Are we really practicing the attitudes of meekness, gentleness, and loving-kindness that should be expected of Christians of all stripes? Or are we being like the proverbial clanging gongs and clashing cymbals?
There is a wonderful older priest at our parish who told the following story:
He said that, many years ago, he was approached by a young man. This young man was a Communist and an atheist. The priest said that he asked to see the Communist Party card that the young man was carrying, as he had never seen one before and it interested him. He spoke to the young man a bit and found out that he had been raised in a very "fire and brimstone" preaching household. The young man was raised with the idea of a God who is very harsh, very cold, very unaccepting -- ready, waiting, and almost eager to cast people into hell. The priest listened to the young man's story and then replied, "If that is what I thought God was supposed to be like, I wouldn't believe in Him, either."
A story worth reflecting on, eh?
Now, did the young man in this story get all converted and everything? No. And that is not even what that priest was after. All he was trying to do was convey to this young person the merciful face of God, as we Christians are supposed to see Him. After all, the women loved Jesus. THEY LOVED HIM. And that tells you something about the guy. Think about that, Governor Perry.
Did this surprise me? No. It is what I have always been taught.
Did it surprise a lot of people? Yes.
If you think about it Biblically, though, it is logical. Read the story of the Good Samaritan, if you don't believe me. Jesus was basically giving a smack-down to all the self-righteous "religious" people.
A lot of atheists, though, appeared to be offended by the Pope's remarks. Perhaps it felt to them as though the Catholic Church was commenting on their beliefs and lives in a manner that was both uninvited and unwanted. I can understand this. It's probably sort of like when I heard that Mormons baptize people without said people being present and without the consent of those people. I wouldn't want that. And maybe the atheists resent us Catholics trying to "save" them. Maybe they view it as an insult to their own intelligence, free-will, and world-view.
There may be another thing going on here, though. And it is something that should cause us Catholics and other types of Christians to do some reflecting. Are we behaving in such a way so as to cause atheists to say, "Why in the name of God, who I don't believe in anyway, would I want to spend an eternity in a place locked up with you prideful, judgmental, mean-spirited, unaccepting people?" They are probably imagining themselves stuck at a banquet table, eternally flanked by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Rick Perry. Not something that is especially appealing to me, either. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we are building bridges to God, and not obstacles (another thing Pope Francis spoke about recently). Are we really practicing the attitudes of meekness, gentleness, and loving-kindness that should be expected of Christians of all stripes? Or are we being like the proverbial clanging gongs and clashing cymbals?
There is a wonderful older priest at our parish who told the following story:
He said that, many years ago, he was approached by a young man. This young man was a Communist and an atheist. The priest said that he asked to see the Communist Party card that the young man was carrying, as he had never seen one before and it interested him. He spoke to the young man a bit and found out that he had been raised in a very "fire and brimstone" preaching household. The young man was raised with the idea of a God who is very harsh, very cold, very unaccepting -- ready, waiting, and almost eager to cast people into hell. The priest listened to the young man's story and then replied, "If that is what I thought God was supposed to be like, I wouldn't believe in Him, either."
A story worth reflecting on, eh?
Now, did the young man in this story get all converted and everything? No. And that is not even what that priest was after. All he was trying to do was convey to this young person the merciful face of God, as we Christians are supposed to see Him. After all, the women loved Jesus. THEY LOVED HIM. And that tells you something about the guy. Think about that, Governor Perry.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
How the Republicans have the Catholics by the...
...balls.
I went to early Mass this morning with my daughter Bridget. She likes to go to early Mass. And since, because of her health issues, she is unable to drive, I went with her. I usually go to a later Mass, as I am no longer much of a morning person. In my youth, I was very much a morning person. Not anymore. And not being a morning person combined with being at early Mass made me a little cranky, which made me start to think about the topic of this post. I have thought about it other times -- when I was not cranky. But, my crankiness in combination with my middle-aged broad menopausal-ness have given me the audacity to actually write about it.
As we all know, if we have been paying any attention whatsoever, is that the Republican party has essentially become the party of the those who oppose legalized abortion and the Democratic party has essentially become the party of those who support legalized abortion.
The Catholic Church teaches very strongly against abortion -- legal or otherwise. It is not my purpose in this post to discuss this teaching, but what this teaching has wrought politically in our country.
When my parents were young, most Catholics were Democrats. My mother explained to me when I was growing up that the Democratic party was the party of the "working person" -- it supported labor rights and a social safety net for people who worked hard for a modest living. And most Catholics were working people. Hence, most of them were Democrats.
As time went on, the Democrats began to support many other ideas that are very "Catholic." The Democratic party still supports a strong social safety net for the poor and the elderly, and champions the right of working people to a living wage and a safe work environment. It also views access to adequate healthcare, housing, and education as essential to human dignity; sees war as something to be engaged in only as a very last resort; promotes the welcoming of the immigrant; and encourages us all to work in solidarity to form a civil society that allows for all people to live according to their beliefs.
The Democratic party also supports abortion rights.
And herein lies the conundrum for Catholics -- and this is how the Republicans have them by the balls.
Because the Republican party does not support abortion rights, and because many in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have made statements to the effect that the abortion issue should be seen as the top priority for Catholic voters, a lot of Catholic voters will vote for Republicans based primarily -- or even solely -- on this issue. I have personally known Catholics who vote this way. I have also personally known Catholics who feel that you are endangering your immortal soul if you vote for a pro-choice Democrat -- even if you vote for that person based on issues other than abortion.
But, there is a danger to this. It basically gives the Republicans a pass to potentially get away with what I will call "crap" without a whole lot of scrutiny by the Catholics. I have, at times, seen Catholics almost turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to some of the objectionable things Republicans say and do as long as those Republicans "toe the line" as far as abortion is concerned. And this worries me. It worries me because I think the Republicans are very well aware of this situation, and I think that at least some of them take advantage of it from time to time.
Please know that I realize I am generalizing a great deal in this post. Most Catholics are not mindless dupes. Maybe some politicians are people of good character. I do not mean to say that Republicans are war-mongers who don't care about poor people. I do not mean to say that Democrats are all selfless do-gooders. There are even Republicans who are pro-choice and Democrats who oppose legalized abortion. My main purpose here is to point out the danger -- no matter what political party you belong to -- of having one issue become so overwhelmingly important that it leaves you vulnerable to those who might manipulate you to their own ends.
I went to early Mass this morning with my daughter Bridget. She likes to go to early Mass. And since, because of her health issues, she is unable to drive, I went with her. I usually go to a later Mass, as I am no longer much of a morning person. In my youth, I was very much a morning person. Not anymore. And not being a morning person combined with being at early Mass made me a little cranky, which made me start to think about the topic of this post. I have thought about it other times -- when I was not cranky. But, my crankiness in combination with my middle-aged broad menopausal-ness have given me the audacity to actually write about it.
As we all know, if we have been paying any attention whatsoever, is that the Republican party has essentially become the party of the those who oppose legalized abortion and the Democratic party has essentially become the party of those who support legalized abortion.
The Catholic Church teaches very strongly against abortion -- legal or otherwise. It is not my purpose in this post to discuss this teaching, but what this teaching has wrought politically in our country.
When my parents were young, most Catholics were Democrats. My mother explained to me when I was growing up that the Democratic party was the party of the "working person" -- it supported labor rights and a social safety net for people who worked hard for a modest living. And most Catholics were working people. Hence, most of them were Democrats.
As time went on, the Democrats began to support many other ideas that are very "Catholic." The Democratic party still supports a strong social safety net for the poor and the elderly, and champions the right of working people to a living wage and a safe work environment. It also views access to adequate healthcare, housing, and education as essential to human dignity; sees war as something to be engaged in only as a very last resort; promotes the welcoming of the immigrant; and encourages us all to work in solidarity to form a civil society that allows for all people to live according to their beliefs.
The Democratic party also supports abortion rights.
And herein lies the conundrum for Catholics -- and this is how the Republicans have them by the balls.
Because the Republican party does not support abortion rights, and because many in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have made statements to the effect that the abortion issue should be seen as the top priority for Catholic voters, a lot of Catholic voters will vote for Republicans based primarily -- or even solely -- on this issue. I have personally known Catholics who vote this way. I have also personally known Catholics who feel that you are endangering your immortal soul if you vote for a pro-choice Democrat -- even if you vote for that person based on issues other than abortion.
But, there is a danger to this. It basically gives the Republicans a pass to potentially get away with what I will call "crap" without a whole lot of scrutiny by the Catholics. I have, at times, seen Catholics almost turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to some of the objectionable things Republicans say and do as long as those Republicans "toe the line" as far as abortion is concerned. And this worries me. It worries me because I think the Republicans are very well aware of this situation, and I think that at least some of them take advantage of it from time to time.
Please know that I realize I am generalizing a great deal in this post. Most Catholics are not mindless dupes. Maybe some politicians are people of good character. I do not mean to say that Republicans are war-mongers who don't care about poor people. I do not mean to say that Democrats are all selfless do-gooders. There are even Republicans who are pro-choice and Democrats who oppose legalized abortion. My main purpose here is to point out the danger -- no matter what political party you belong to -- of having one issue become so overwhelmingly important that it leaves you vulnerable to those who might manipulate you to their own ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)