Last year, the bishops drafted a voting guide for Catholics, which urged followers to "pay attention to issues like poverty, war, the environment and human rights (NYT 11/14/ 2008)," and claimed, "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2007)." Some of the bishops are displeased with the language of the document, because the faithful, encouraged by them, saw that war, poverty, and injustice destroys innocent life as much or more than abortion does, and voted overwhelmingly for a candidate who pledged to work on those evils, but bowed to reality on the points where they differ.
The Democratic Party has adopted the attitude that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. To that end, Democrats attempt to construct a social safety net that will enable any woman to raise a child, should she find herself pregnant in less-than-ideal circumstances. The Democrats similarly constructed their position on stem-cell research to prevent wanton destruction of life.
The Catholic church has adopted the attitude for centuries (Wikipedia: History of Abortion), that women who became pregnant in bad circumstances were suffering for their sins, and deserved whatever came their way, including, but not limited to being separated from their infants at birth, living in poverty, and enduring social stigma for either having children outside of marriage or being without them. The neoconservative movement, which tends to believe that poverty is a well-deserved punishment for sin, has agreed, and the two groups have supported "social conservative" candidates whose anti-woman policies mirror their own.
The aforementioned citizens, having had enough, spoke with a clear voice, yet groups like the Catholic bishops seem to think it is their place to "confront" Obama about his position on abortion and stem cell research. They sow the seeds of division by doing so, and their efforts are likely to backfire.
For the last 50 years, the Catholic Church has waged an uphill battle with its own flock over the use of contraception. While women became more educated and less resigned to surrendering their personal aspirations to biology, the church campaigned relentlessly against family planning. It admitted one exception only, the family planning method that is most difficult to use and most subject to failure.
American Catholics are not sliding morally. If anything, they are beginning to realize that regardless of what the clergy tells them, the life of an 18-year-old marine, a 14-year-old rape victim, or a person suffering from Parkinson's disease is as important as the life of an unborn child. While church leaders might prefer otherwise, the viewpoint is certainly valid. Church leaders have had their say. The electorate has spoken. The bishops should no longer try to frame the discussion.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 88
That would be the 'rhythm' method, I presume, Ann? My husband jokes that this is certainly a constant rhythm - resulting in one baby per year.
It is absolutely sacrilegious how involved in politics the Catholics bishops have become. I was very happy to see CO vote down the 'life begins at contraception' law they were pushing there. They have become almost militant in their frenzied lobbying of legislatures. Instead of spending their time attending to their own church, they choose to enter politics, and their churches are suffering because of it.
I had not been in a Catholic church for years before my FIL's funeral last year. My daughter and I performed music as part of the service [or rather, were only allowed to play prior to the mass]. It was extremely disturbing to see the church plastered with pictures of bloody fetuses covering up statues of Mary and Jesus and the stations of the cross. They are hypocrites and mysogynists. If they would support responsible birth control and support of children after birth, it would be a whole lot more humane. They even oppose gay couples adopting children into stable, loving homes due to their prejudice and hate. Disgusting.
I do not wish to censor anyone, but to "control the tenor of this debate."
Thanks to Sheryl for her wise counsel.
The Catholic church, the government, no one, should have the right to tell a woman what to do with their own bodies.
Pro-life has never been anti-woman. Quite the contrary. Being pro-life offers more choices than being pro-choice....which should really be termed "pro-abortion" since so many feel that is the only choice.
I would not do without one of them, I think abstinence should be taught, as a birth control, especially in this day and age when aids is so rampant. I believe women should have to right to decide to abort a baby if there is something that will injure her health or, in case of rape. I think this is a very personal thing, and should not be governed by Government or the Church. But left to an individual and God. I think all polititicans say what they want you to hear when campaigning, so am not surprised at anything that happens, after any election.
The church is against birth control. This robs a woman of the choice whether or not to have children, unless she is willing to use natural family planning.
The church is against abortion. This robs women whose lives are endangered by pregnancy of their lives. It robs women whose health is endangered by pregnancy of their health. It robs rape and incest victims of any choice except the one made for them by the church. It condemns some children to lives of unbearable pain and suffering through genetic diseases.
At the same time, the church says that it is wrong to rob a person of his or her life before its natural end. Some women will have abortions whether they are legal or not. 68,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. Women who are unable to obtain abortions in countries where the church has sway are robbed by their lives by the church every year. Why is this acceptable?
Human beings, particularly adolescent ones, have tremendous sex drives. Why must the only solution be "wait until we give you permission"? I would rather supply 50 teenaged girls with the pill than deal with the number of unintended pregnancies they would produce if told "wait until you are married." The truth is that they won't all wait.
As to the poor being so because of sin I refute that because Christ said the poor would always be with us and we are to help them and though I am not quoting scripture specifically on this I can certainly show that being poor is not a result of sin.
Hmmm, that would make the payments to those who were molested by the Priests look like small change don't you think?
:O\
My first grade grandson went home very upset just before the election and asked his mother why Obama kills babies. Apparently, another student told him this. Children learn at home and at school. The hatred is so apparent. Maybe we've gotten past some of the racial hatred, but there is still a tremendous amount of religious persecution regarding abortion and gay rights.
Wikipedia is a composite of unverified contributions from individuals with a variety to education levels and opinons. It is not recognized as an authentic source by teachers.
This is completely false: "The Catholic church has adopted the attitude for centuries (Wikipedia: History of Abortion), that women who became pregnant in bad circumstances were suffering for their sins, and deserved whatever came their way.."
Please be sure to verify your sources before posting. Even though we are accustomed to religious persecution, this kind of misinformation could be interpreted as prejuduce or hate.
I just wanted to say I am finally going through what is now under 6,400 pieces of gather new mail that is in my inbox on here. So with that in mind I have finally come to a piece of mail that was addressed to me in regards this article submission you have created to share with the gather community. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your piece with us here at gather. :o)
For this purpose, i.e. an easily confirmed matter of historical fact, Wikipedia is reliable and completely acceptable.
As to my assertion about what the church believes about women getting what they deserve when they get pregnant, this is first hand knowledge, and it is completely true.
When some priest or bishop goes to this extent to sway voters he is acting outside the parameters of the church. And in addressing temporal matters and matters of politics, none of the faithful are obligated in any way to follow that priest's direction. The problem here is, how many of the faithful fully understand the limitations of the priest of bishop and how many understand the freedom of conscience doctrine?
Kennedy made it clear that he was a civil leader and in no way was bound to act in the manner the Pope might like. None of the American clergy challenged that. I have listened to many a sermon in a Catholic church and have yet to hear a sermon dedicated to abortion. This action on the part of any bishop or priest defies all logic and privilege of the clergy. To take that kind of role in a civil election goes beyond the privilege of any tax exempt church in America! Any parish doing this should be investigated and if it is actually true, that parish should loose their tax exemption.
On this whole abortion thing, Larry is correct. We do not need to act in God's place, he can handle it all on his own. It is time to allow him to do that rather than setting ourselves up as judge and jury after passing laws that should never have been!
Don't tell me they aren't teaching anti-abortion.
Maybe it is a church-by-church thing?
Maybe they should focus on management of their quite awesome Catholic Family Charities program. They are very good at doing that.
Just keep the religions out of the state houses, and keep it in the churches. However, I sing a different tune when a priest, reverend, rabbi, minister tells people how to vote. THEN, I want to impose PAC taxes on them.
Wilka
Where hour experiences that you state first hand knowledge, it must vary with the location. I have never heard that from the pulpit nor from any priest that I have known. And are you familiar with the freedom of conscience doctrine? In some of these things, that doctrine comes into play. but you have obviously hit some very uptight and controlling priests, based on your statement. And it sounds like those priests are going against current church doctrine and teachings.
Yes, the church condemns both abortion and birth control except for the rhythm method and we all know how successful that is. But what church does not condemn abortion? And the catholic church has had little success in keeping American women from using birth control. It's always easy to get around it if one feels the need to justify the use of contraception.
The same pills are prescribed to regulate menstrual cycles and may be taken for years for that. But basically, this is a teaching of the church that is not set in stone. No pope, acting ex-cathedra, has ever defined birth control as a sin. Because of this fact, it would be possible for a p;ope in the future to completely reverse this teaching. Without that level of condemnation the entire subject is debatable. Abortion is another matter as that has been defined as a sin.
If anyone told you that the Catholic church was not solidly against abortion, they lied! Catholics have been at the forefront of the anti-abortion movement in this nation. That does not translate into allowing the church to dictate who someone must vote for! That is a huge and wild leap! The things mentioned about crosses in the church yard and other open pushing of the anti-abortion movement are usually the work of a lay organization. And if they are displaying pictures of fetus or aborted fetus, they have gotten out of hand.
Father John Hardon says, "professed Catholics who practice contraception either give up the practice of contraception or they give up their Catholic faith." in Contraception: fatal to the faith.
Two popes during my lifetime have issued encyclicals condemning the use of artificial birth control. While this may be acceptable to Catholics, to prevent others access to contraception is unconscionable, yet that is exactly what the church attempts to do, here and elsewhere, the while ignoring the fact that doing so causes the number of women who seek abortions will rise.
I may have to give up my stand for Whirled Pease, and take up the anti-religion / pro-faith / keep-your-Jesus-out-of-my-government cudgel instead. I have facts and figures of what the catholic faith has done over the past millinea that shrieks "Anti-woman" for the past thousand years.
Woman haters, the lot of them--May they burn in their own Christian Hell.
Wilka
Good on you, sistah! Good on you.
Wilka
Featured in the Triple Name Club.
I see their agenda changes as it becomes convenient for them.
Around me, which means here in Ohio, it is the Fundamentalist Protestants that are seen most often in their anti-abortion stances; as they are more common in my area of Ohio than Catholics. And each of these groups are decidedly classicist in their portrayal of the role of women in Christian life.
As for our national laws, I accept that abortions will take place regardless of the law; and that, as a result, it is much better to have abortion be legalized and regulated for the sake of the general health of the nation. Back alley and black market abortions cause way more problems for society than the legalized and regulated kind.
I also agree that churches should not promote any one political candidate over any other political candidate from the pulpit or in the sanctuary. Discernment is a personal thing; and is always more spiritually preferable than an edict.
Great topic.
I have never understood how the church can advocate this method if their stance is that sex is for procreation only. It makes no sense to me.
I also think the best measure of a religious institution is in what it does to help people living and now...the only viable way to measure success. A church that discourages condom use in a nation plagued with AIDs, or discouraging birth control in a poverty stricken nation where a woman may have already given birth to seven children who are starving...or who may support a pro-torture, antiAmerican candidate who says he is anti-choice though he can do little or nothing about it over a candidate who might be anti-abortion but pro-choice...is this supposed to be GOOD for people? I think not.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
You've just got to think it through, Doyle. The churches know that religions grow only in strength and power according to the size of their ranks. What better way could there be to insure increasing growth other than promoting only the Rhythm Method as the appropriate anti-pregnancy tool.
It's like bar owners telling people that the only way to quit drinking is to only drink on weekends.
I think the Iraq war is the bigger issue, for our country, collectively, right now. As well as the things that led to it. Such as allowing criminals who are generally without ethics, to rule our nation.
If they ruled agains't abortion, it would not be so much because they CARE about CHILDREN or KILLING OF CHILDREN, but probably more because it would often COST THE GOVERNMENT MONEY to give a woman an abortion.... And these people were just all about the MONEY - that is, TAKING AS MUCH OF IT AS THEY COULD, FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS, WHILE LEAVING THE REST OF US IN THE LURCH!
They were against abortion, because it COSTS MONEY, just like it costs money to provide women with birth control, medical care, benefits for fatherless children, etc... All of which, they were ALSO AGAINST.
If G. Bush and Co. cared about CHILDREN, they would have cared about all those IRAQI CHILDREN, who's heads they dropped bombs on, for no good reason....
So if they were against abortion, it was for THE WRONG REASONS.
What, are you going to expect me to believe George Bush was a CHRISTIAN with a CONSCIENCE??
GT
The one method of birth control allowed by the Catholic church is NOT the rythem method and is NOT the most likely to fail. Statistics show that NFP (Natural Family Planning) if followed properly has a lower failure percentage than most other methods.
See stats here: http://ccli.org/nfp/basics/effectiveness-p03.php
Admittedly, the older rythem method was very failure prone and is no longer reccommended.
Furthermore, telling parishioners that they may not receive communion if they voted for a candidate is abuse. Catholics believe that communion bestows grace. If they are cut off until they repent, their choices are: (1) agree with the priest and go against their own consciences; (2) disagree with the priest, and remain out of communion (excommunicated); (3) disagree with the priest, but make a false repentance, which they then must carry on their consciences. It's lose-lose for the Catholic who did what he or she thought was right.
I heard a news article today on how some bishops were saying(in public) that catholics were getting too educated and forgetting their faith. If being faithful means being stupid, I really understand why I left the catholic church! And here I thought it was only because of the misogyny and bigotry.
Kim
I haven't been hurt by Catholics. If anything, I feel for Catholics. Many seem so intelligent and able to accomplish many things. Yet, they hang on to these archaic beliefs. It is a backward religion no less than the Taliban in Afghanistan is a backward religion. Of course, the United States is a place where one can get educated. So, you have many self styled "cafeteria Catholics." They know that the tenets of the religion are flawed. They are the worst kind of people because they know better but continue to promote the hatreds of the church.
I know it's the Internet - people can write anything they want without checking their facts. I come here trying to point peopel toward facts and away from unsupported statements.
...Let me see if I have the rest of this concept straight: A set of beliefs that espouse the existence of an entity (God) that there is absolutely no evidence of (existing), and a bunch of men (who exclude women from their ranks) profess to be able to hand down edicts from this imaginary friend (categorizing as such until evidence of existence is presented) and control women with manipulation of their fear by threatening of burning for all eternity in hell if they don't do as these guys say... If I were a woman, I'd pass on this.
Societies outlaw abortion and homosexuality when they are in need of warriors to die for whatever cause the leaders are pursuing. This may be what is happening now. Whatever the case, Catholic bishops have no business telling people how to vote.
We're taught to respect life.
You don't like Catholics or what we believe, that's fine by me. I'm not in the business of converting anybody. I'm not a perfect Catholic, but I get a little tired of the Catholic-bashing that has become so popular over the years.
Assuming that Catholics did vote more for Obama (which I wouldn't dispute), do you really think they voted for him because he is pro-abortion? You've got to be kidding.
I don't think so. The Democratic Party supports abortion-on-demand, not just for victims of rape and incest, which are the rarest reasons for aborthions, but for the cheaters, irresponsible adolescents and adults (mostly upper and middle-class, by the way -- not the poor, uneducated) and the pharmaceutical companies lying in wait to open fetus-farms for research. Yep - those same pharmaceutical companies that they like to bash whenever they get the chance.
Oh, really? Where did you get that one, off of a bumper sticker?
Please respect my opinion that it is wrong -- even if you don't agree with me.
There are priests telling parishioners not to receive communion if they voted for Obama unless and until they go to confession. Even some of the bishops think these priests are out of line. The fact that none told you personally who to vote for does not absolve all of this behavior.
"Assuming that Catholics did vote more for Obama (which I wouldn't dispute), do you really think they voted for him because he is pro-abortion?"
Of course not. They voted for him because in other respects, he most closely reflects their beliefs. I assume that is why most people who voted for him (as opposed to voting against McCain) did so. However, the bishops and priests in question seem to think that is why they voted for him.
"... abortion should be safe, legal, and rare ..." This is a verbatim quote from a statement that accompanied Bill Clinton's veto of an anti-abortion bill. The bill did NOT provide for cases of maternal health, rape, or incest.
Ann Coulter educated me about the causes of poverty.
Finally, I do not support abortion. I support a woman's right to have an abortion, if that is what she determines is the appropriate action to take. I would not dictate to anyone what they must do when I am not the person who has to live with the consequences of the decision.
HERBS. ABORTIFANTS - ancient knowledge needs to be re-taught. Womens' business.
Catholic Church still patriarchal hierarchy = women and children are possessions of males. That's the logic. Not great logic, but it's kept things in place for several thousand years.
As we all know, priests, like the rest of us are humans and imperfect. If some are telling their parishioners that, then they're wrong and doing so against the direction of their superiors.
People voted for Obama because they saw McCain as a continuation of something they'd had enough of. If Huckabee wasn't so afraid of a Mormon being president, he would have bowed out of the primaries much sooner and the general election mahy have gone differently.
(I am however, supporting the newly-elected president and believe that he'll prove to be the solid leader we're looking for.)
I've been away for a bit, due to a hospitalization, so I apologize for this late comment.
The Catholic church has ALWAYS tried to force women to be submissive to ALL men, and feel they have the right to control ALL aspects of a womans life. There is another religion that demands nearly the same subserviance outside the Muslim faith, and that is the LDS church.
What all of them have in common is the fact that they are all male controlled, and they promote the idea that the MAN has the right to make any and all decisions concerning a womans control over her own body. All it really amounts to is that these men cannot acknowledge that a woman has a mind of her own and has the right to make decisions that affect her personally, and the only answering she should ever have to face is that of her "maker" or "creator" or whatever she believes.
Most women would not even consider "telling" another woman what she should do with her own body, even if she did not agree with the choice being made. I personally could not ever consider having an abortion, but that is my feeling on the matter. I believe the Church and Govt. should NOT be allowed to dictate this, it is a personal thing, and should be left to the woman to decide for herself. It is my fellow womans right to have one as much as it is my right NOT to have one.
Some day, someone in this world will have the ability to bring the Catholic church down some, and enforce the "separation of church and state".
Insult Muslims ... BAD
Insult Jews ... BAD
Insult Gay/Lesbian ... BAD
Insult African-Americans ... BAD
Insult women ... BAD
Insult Catholics ... Have a ball!
It's OK, we've been persecuted for 2000 years and we're still around and will be for the next 2,000 years.
Good night & God Bless us ... Everyone!
The Catholic church preaches one thing and does another, evil thing. The church says "All life is holy and must be protected until the moment of natural death." Then it supports the war, encouraging young men and women to "serve their country." The church has stepped out of bounds. It has no business telling people who to vote for, nor castigating them for their choice of political candidate. If telling the emperor that he is naked is persecuting the church, then I'm guilty, but don't be in such a hurry to pick up the mantle of martyrdom, because this is not unjust nor undeserved.
I would not be surprised if any priest stepped out of line by trying to tell someone how to vote -- and any priest that does that should be reprimanded.
And spare me the martyrdom crap. This stuff annoys me but it sure as heck doesn't beat me down.
Furthermore, when Jesus came along and preached Peace and Tolerance he was first
persecuted and murdered until such time as it became more expedient and convenient to
Co-opt his name and the movement his life had started by a Roman Dictator who began the total perversion of Jesus' real message and mission of Peace, Brotherhood, and Equality (including for WOMEN).
The Catholic Church in the Guise of the Vatican has been nothing more than an alternative method of tax collection on the poor as well as life controlling immoral blood suckers from the beginning of the Vatican on.
It is still an Anti-Woman, Anti-Poor organization which has has a long history of protecting Mass Murderers and Pedophiles (from the Nazi's to present day sicko's).
Not only should they be Taxed, they should be required to end the Priest-Confessor Privacy privliges similar to those of Attorney -Client relationships.
If Jesus came back today, he himself would burn down the Vatican, sell off ALL of the Church's Vast Holdings, Riches, and Worldly Possessions of the Catholic Church, and GIVE IT ALL TO THE POOR!
That is what Jesus told me.