A few months ago I noticed a site, http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/RadioAds.asp, that thrilled this lapsed Catholic. On it I discovered that there were many Roman Catholics like me who were disillusioned with our church's dishonest and dangerous approach to the subject of human sexuality in a post-HIV/Aids world.
I had left the church in my early thirties over the unequal treatment of women perpetuated by the Vatican and the American Catholic hierarchy. The forbidden birth control pill only seemed a kindness to all the women I knew and also to their husbands, children and even the unwanted ones who with its use would not be born. Until all the children who are already here are loved and well cared for, I must remain pro-birth control and pro-choice, my Catholic up-bringing notwithstanding.
Admittedly the Vatican's stance on birth control and family breeding wasn't my only problem with the church. Catholics had also been ignoring the many convents filled with old, sick nuns who had worked their fingers to the bone, further demonstrating a lack of respect for women and our work. The nuns' only solution seemed to be to recruit naive, younger novices to care for them, as although the church supported its priests with housekeepers, housing, new cars and guaranteed retirement benefits, they treated the nuns like annoying charity cases.
These same nuns, of course, had been the nurses, teachers and caregivers who had devoted their lives to the service of others on behalf and under the guise of the Church. I found it disgusting when these women were scraped off the balance sheet like peeling paint once they were no longer useful to the church's many labor-intensive endeavors.
Anyone who went to Catholic school has a story, I suppose, of Sister "Mary Margaret" whacking their fingers with a ruler, but how many have a "Mary Margaret" who inspired them to be the better person they became? The nuns I knew were kind, sincere people. They went beyond the norm making sure that each child had friends, no child was left to slip behind and good behavior was rewarded with appropriate praise. They also kept the 'bad boys' in line, something all young Catholic girls appreciate still.
I should probably also thank the nun who candidly said, "Oh dear! Well, every little girl wants to become a nun but... I don't think you'd be happy in a convent." I prefer to think she recognized my maternal qualities, but more prophetic words have never been spoken.
Most of the nuns were sweet, tolerant women who demanded excellence, making them seem tougher and less caring than they were. Young humans tend to associate 'get their way' or 'getting away with crap' as evidence that the person cares. It is only with maturity we recognize that is rarely the case. One must learn the rules of earned consequences, so much easier and more practical if done at a tender age. I thought the nuns, with one exception, were wonderful.
In spite of my many conflicts with the Catholic church, a few years after I left my husband convinced me to return in exchange for a good Catholic education for our children. Our local public school had doubled its student body in three years and was ill-prepared to deal with the expansion, often sinking to the lowest common denominator as their highest standard of achievement.
All children deserve better, of course, but I was torn. Although I am a strong supporter of public education, the improvements that needed to be made just to bring that school up to average were overwhelming. There was no political or financial will to make them happen, and I reasoned my children would be grandparents before half were enacted.
Changing schools seemed a worthwhile trade and the children flourished. Church became the center of our week with school Monday through Friday and church on Sunday. Females had historically been forbidden from entering certain parts of the altar area as they were considered 'unclean'. The Monsignor had been attempting to modernize the parish and please his parishioners with his creation of fourth-grade 'altar girls'.
This was intended to break the previous two-thousand year exclusion, rumors of which prompted the Bishop's unexpected visit. While the girls were preparing to serve communion, Bishop Timothy Mahoney (now a Cardinal in Los Angeles) evicted the little sprites from the altar.
Not only did my 9-year-old feel shamed by Eve's infamous original sin, the Bishop had confirmed her continuing inferiority based on her gender. Always top of her class and certainly miles ahead when one judged against the lack of maturity the boys exhibited, this was a crushing blow. My little girl became an innocent pedestrian run over by the church secret police.
To say that I wanted to kill someone would have put it mildly. On the other hand, the kids were doing so well and my husband said it wasn't important in the scheme of things. And I adored our Monsignor. He was handsome in the way of my father and his brothers, fit, kindly, warm, open and had previously reassured me that I needn't feel shame if my husband was a 'cultural' Catholic. This he defined as one who enjoys the architecture, the music, the tradition, the mass and even the holidays, but generally ignores the teachings of the church, holy days of obligation, etc. Perhaps many of us fit into this category at times.
"Oh, Mrs. Madrigal. We are long past the days of using a shepherd's crook to drag the men to Mass," he had said, his twinkling eyes communicating an endearing sympathy and tolerant acceptance as only a fatherly Irish priest can do.
From that day forward I had committed to be part of the Church's new modernization which also served to make me feel complicit in the crime when my daughter and her little girlfriends were rejected for service. We mothers were united and incensed, but again and again the Monsignor intercepted and smothered our rebellion with his soothing words.
"Change takes time," he reminded us. "Time belongs to God, and it is not our church that is wrong but the interpretations of men who have outlived their usefulness. "
It was some consolation and even seemed almost hopeful, until Reagan and the Bushes and the Christian fundamentalists began to usurp practicing Catholics' independence and their historically middle and working-class values over the issue of abortion. A fundamentalist right that thrilled to the barbaric executions of criminals also championed the right of a few cells to be considered 'a person'.
We all accept there is true loss when a pregnancy is terminated, but this only fortifies the concept that contraception and family planning are the friends of the anti-abortionists. Unfortunately, the only acceptable method of birth control in the Roman Catholic church is the Rhythm Method, otherwise known as the second most ineffective one, the most ineffective, of course, being abstinence.
In a comparison of rhythm and abstinence, I would claim they are both completely unrealistic and their proponents are either asexual, in denial, suffering from hormonal problems themselves and/or have no respect for or understanding of the sacredness and power of human sexuality. You may disagree, and I respect your right to do so. I don't accept or respect your right to prevent me or any other woman or man from freely and legally living their own lives as they deem fit.
Today when President Obama outlined his intention to reverse the midnight regulation known as the "Conscience" clause passed by President Bush, I wanted to jump up and down with joy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html?hp This last minute Bush-era regulation allowed medical caregivers to refuse to offer services, counseling or refer patients to others for these things when it bothered the employee's 'conscience'.
Now I will further explain that in no sense did this mean something 'illegal in the United States of America'. An issue of 'conscience' meant something they did not believe was 'right', effectively giving them power over the patient's rights. No one is suggesting that a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or not perform one. However, as long as it remains legal in this country to get an abortion, medical professionals who refuse treatment to individuals with no other options for treatment are cads.
Of course, this is such medieval thinking, I am stumped when I I try to imagine what kind of person would actually be a medical services professional and withhold requested care and/or refuse to refer the person to another professional if they were reluctant to provide the care him or herself. This is a particularly critical problem in rural communities or in some cultures where submissive behavior in women and children is the norm.
Through the YWCA I trained and volunteered as a Sexual Assault Advocate, so forgive me if I don't need to imagine a 12-year-old girl who has been raped by her teenage brother or cousin or grandpa or father or family friend. I can remember such children arriving unattended at a hospital, police station or courthouse, as I met her there. The thought horrifies me that anyone could deny this child, or any other patient, legal medical services because they didn't approve of the person, the problem or the request.
I can also imagine a married 50-year-old woman who was deathly ill with cancer who discovered that it wasn't menopause that stopped her periods. To continue with her cancer treatment she needed an abortion. The pregnancy and growth hormone chemicals her body produced were making her cancer cells proliferate wildly. Should a doctor or pharmacist decide that her life is worth less than that of a few dividing cells? This is no different from the man of centuries past who held complete power over his wife and slaves, as their legal status was that of chattel.
Of course, these are extreme cases, but every woman and every family should have the right to make their own personal medical choices. Anyone in the medical profession who disagrees needs to go into private practice away from hospitals and other care facilities that deal with the public.
Latin Americans, the majority of whom are Roman Catholic, seem to be the current generation most burdened with the Roman Catholic church's stance on birth control and conception. While most American Catholics are considered wildly out of control by the Vatican, Latins seem to remain imprisoned by the traditions and concepts of purity and goodness for a person to feel acceptable. Unfortunately this has proven to the detriment of their collective health.
Catholics for Choice and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health joined forces in 2008. Through their work they have created radio spots aimed at Latins, hoping to improve and promote condom usage.
According to Silvia Henriquez, executive director of the NLIRH:
“Latinos represent almost 20 percent of new HIV infections occurring in the United States and young Latinas are twice as likely to face an unintended pregnancy as the general population."
These statistics are frightening enough for Latinos, but should also concern the rest of us. Latins are the fastest growing population group in the country and what's good for them is good for us.
The new radio spots promote the concept that "good Catholics use condoms" and that condom use is a way to care for ourselves and protect those we love. These radio spots include scenarios in which grandmothers speak to gay grandsons, lovers speak to each other and parents encourage their children to be caring, responsible and careful. If you are interested in these radio commercials or joining the cause, the effort is now underway and will be nationalized this year.
Talking openly with younger siblings, pre-adolescents, teens and grandchildren about condom use is the responsible way to show respect for the sacredness of life and our shared human sexuality.
Please be safe. www.Condoms4Life.org
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
Now, many of my friends were Catholic and did go to the Convent and they all hated the nuns, many were completely wild. They're still my friends and we talk about those old days all the time. You are so right - everyone has a story!
Good artice Elizabeth and great pictures - thanks for the information too. Salud
And excellent and detailed write up which I thoroughly enjoyed! From what was written on the little bit given about each article, I thought that it also said the the Catholic Freedom of Conscience" doctrine had been reversed. Apparently it did not imply that. They don't need to reverse it, I don't think 90% of Catholics are aware of it.
A masterful article. You have an excellent mind and use it well here. Whether I agree wholly with you or not, I admire your ability to state your case.
Thank you for sharing.
After writing this piece, however, I am again reminded how fortunate I am to be a woman in this age who can legally speak her mind without fear of being (literally) stoned to death. How lucky to have been born, raised and currently living in this country. God bless America!
It is my hope that the Vatican will take off its blinders and recognize both the inequities you enumerate and the opportunities that positive reform would give in making a better world.
I so enjoyed reading this, as you are always honest, clear and concise in your views. (Also, I actually think we think a lot a like!)
is only for stories, poems and drabbles. Fiction or journal entries. Is this a journal? I was just curious? Clarify it for me, and I will decide if I will accept this into my group.
Thanks for the info.
WHen I became Catholic in '92, I was under a lot of stress = and i forgot that I was joining something that was opposed to everything I held dear - I loved the window dressing and not much else - literally; i loved then and now the stained glass, the robes, the music, the choir, the stations of the cross, the wine and wafer - but I joined at the Paulists, which is Jesuit, as you know.
I left for good in 2004 amidst the Boston priest crisis.
I still sing the songs at home, but I cannot reconcile myself with organized religion - I was brought up completely anathema to relgion.
So, I will thank you politely for this post. But, unfortunately can't accept it in my group at this time.
No hard feelings, eh?
Yes, Kimberly, you and I share so much in common.:) My father was Episcopalian and highly critical of my mother's Roman Catholicism, so out of a sense of loyalty and fairness to my mother, I was even more determined to be a 'good little Catholic girl'.
Kathryn, you could still be a cultural Catholic, like my husband. He loves the music, the high mass (not to attend, just the concept and again, the music) and all the architecture. The Boston priest party was terrible, really, and it was not so secret. All the adults always knew that there were bad priests who molested kids, but there was a shortage in our era and they were just passed around to a different parish after being told to behave.
It has changed now, which is about time, but not any more than in the general community. We are still dealing with pedophiles and sex offenders all across the country, in every little or large city. It makes one wonder, is it like this everywhere, or are Americans - as my English friend claims - a bunch of over-sexed people with more than our share of the freaks?
To women, HER PHOTOSHOOT
I really don't think any professional should be forced to do something that s/he isn't comfortable with. I don't think you'd object to a cardiologist not wanting to do brain surgery or podiatry, for example. Likewise, in a state where assisted suicide is legal, many doctors would be extremely uncomfortable with it and refuse to actually do it. They should no have to. An individual's moral and relligious convictions are just as valid in the case of abortion. No one should be forced to prform one. That's just messing with an individual's personal integrity and professionalism.
And no, I am not wildly pro-life--or pro-choice. I have been solidly on the fence for a long time!
This is, ironically, slightly different from the notion of the “pill” which I think will change in the decades to come. We all know that bad expression of a joke “barefoot and pregnant” but in fact the female body is optimally designed to be either in a pregnant or a lactating mode. Unnecessary menstrual cycles are not only inconvenient but the blood loss has to be replaced by the body and there could be long term effects. The “modern” pill was deliberately designed to continue periods because they feared eliminating them would freak women out. “No period” birth control pills are possible. On the other hand, these pills in general can cause long term problems on the other side and might increase breast cancer risks. In this case the “principle of double effect” can be invoked, that the health of the woman outweighs the artificial infertility caused by the drug. But again, there is no perfect thing in this world, only tradeoffs between one bad thing and another.
In all cases the Catholic Church calls everyone to Chastity. But we do not live in a perfect world. We are all sinners. This becomes more important when actions have consequences. This is similar to the notion of rhythm and NFP; the former assumed that everything was identical and the later is adjusted to the natural conditions of the individual. Thus the approach of “you should do this, but if you don’t do this at least, do that” is not only practical but morally proper.
But as you said, we are all sinners which varies depending on one's definition of sin. Also, natural planning methods are a wonderful thing - I was able to conceive my children based on the same - but they are not necessarily going to protect the health of people who have made 'mistakes' or were not 'chaste'.
Most of life is a personal choice in this country, tempered by one's religious and social beliefs and I think we are very fortunate to have this. What I find painful personally is the church's stance on some of these safety issues that can result in consequences that are the equivalent of a death sentence. The church's teachings have changed over the years - to accommodate the church, such as the provision of celibacy for priests so that the expense of supporting the priests' families could be elminated.
I merely propose that if the church will not change its stance on condoms and birth control - certainly its right - that the members of the church take the lead and protect their children and grandchildren. Of course we want our children, particularly, to avoid becoming prematurely sexually active, but, again, we are not all created equal. Some children mature sexually when they are quite young adolescents, without the frontal lobe capacity to handle the hormonal drives. Until there are enough parents able to love, supervise and protect these kids from destructive behavior - which is going to take more than a renewed economy for most people in the middle and lower classes who are mainly working merely to survive - I am suggesting practical encouragement to protect themselves.
Not all chldren are going to be sexually precocious - but many in this country, from our poor example and a society obsessed with sex as well as their own needs, will be.
Again, I respect your opinion, thank you for the update on the NFP, which I agree is a scientifically based improvement over rhythm, the reason I have 4 siblings rather than 2. I hope for all children that they recognize they have a future and therefore resist the temptation to become prematurely involved. However, I fear for the ones who make a mistake and I don't want them to die for it. Just my viewpoint.
The birth control ban in the Roman Catholic church is one of the more immoral requirements of the religion. The priests don't ever have to concern themselves with the care of children. Who are they to tell families how to manage procreation? I will always come down in favor of pro-choice and pro-family policies. Couples are the only people who should decide on issues of birth control and abortion. After all, they are the people who shoulder the responsibility of children. It is wrong for government or religious figures to offer any input into the matter, in my opinion.
What a guy IMHO.
I agree with you very deeply and almost 100% on your various points, and especially on the topic of public education. Where I grew up, there was one Catholic High School in a moderately large city. Where I live now, there are hundreds. It's a great way to avoid going to school with many, or a majority of, black kids (though there are always some- funny how some great athletes manage to get scholarships). I won't quibble with people's personal choices for their kids, that is none of my business, though I find it offensive when people criticize a public education system that they have never experienced, and just repeat urban myths that have no basis in fact. Many, but of course not all by any means, of my neighbors reject the schools because of pressure from relatives or other matters unrelated to school quality or any reality. Our kids are part of a small Caucasian minority in an African American-dominated district, and they have had a great education, with no social problems at all.
We have terrible Catholic leadership where I live, in my opinion; they are highly politicized and viciously conservative, with an unmitigated joy for punitive measures against the little people. If this continues, expect a big push from me and many others to end tax exempt status for religious organizations that engage in politics. Enough is enough, and that includes my being fed up with everyone who latched onto (previous administrations') Federal dollars by injecting right-wing political messages in their sermons. Talk about souls being sold...
Thanks for the great post.
Joe T., I found your comments really connected with my experiences as well. In so many ways the Catholic church has been a wonderful social service provider, and so in many respects I hate to criticize with such a broad stroke without stating that. I totally agree with you that the couple should have control over their own family size as they are the ones who must sacrifice in order to feed, cloth, raise and educate those children.
Great comments and I loved reading them all.
But please, don't call yourself something, then rail against what you suggest you are.
Either you are a Catholic, and practice the dogma of the church, or you go your own way and call yourself something else.
I can't imagine anyone suggesting THEY know what a "real" Catholic is, and the Pope is just a dunce in a white uniform.
Lastly, why should a patient's "rights" trump those of the caregiver???
I respect everyone's right to believe what they want, but if I think there is an injustice because of wrong thinking, I will speak out. Even if I get disapproval or criticism for doing so, for me, it is a matter of principle. I write and if an issue is disturbing me, I write about that issue.
A caregiver who refuses to provide a legal service to the public has every right in the world to withhold that care, as long as the public is not paying for that caregiver's livelihood and that caregiver does not hold him/herself out to be part of a government-sponsored aka paid enterprise. These people should work in private hospitals, pharmacies, medical practices, labs, etc.
A non-religious example is this. I do not believe in capital punishment, hence I would never hold myself out as a proper employee to work in a prison where I might be called upon to participate in a publicly-sponsored execution. Why would a semi-publicly financed health care facility and its employees be any different? This is why the 'conscience' regulation was complete and utter bull and a slimy way to circumvent the legislative authority of Congress. Perhaps this is the technical part of my argument that I neglected to include. Many procedures that a legal medical procedures and usages (including condom use) would not be provided to those who requested these at publicly financed institutions, including the military hospitals. A female soldier is more likely to be raped or gang-raped while serving in combat areas than even while going to college in the states, which a girl has 1 in 4 chances of being raped while obtaining a four-year degree. (Oh, let me mention, it is rape by her own military comrades, not the enemy.)
It is because of the greater good that I am, again, sticking to my post's arguments for a new definition of family responsibility which includes promoting condom use.
As an additional point, I am not against Catholics and there are many Catholics both within my family and without whom I love and admire greatly. I have also seen the suffering some of their families have endured over the issues I posted about. I am merely a person who believes in sensible and preventative health care.
As far as what I really am, it is a cross between Catholic and Episcopalian, which my parents were and a Gather friend has deemed "Cathlopalian".
Also, you made it very clear you are a "lapsed" Catholic, no need to apologize.
Yes, I am a black and white kind of guy. I see the world as choices, absolutes, right and wrong, with very little gray/grey areas. This is the very definition of conviction.
A caregiver who refuses to provide a legal service to the public has every right in the world to withhold that care, as long as the public is not paying for that caregiver's livelihood and that caregiver does not hold him/herself out to be part of a government-sponsored aka paid enterprise.
Such a definition includes virtually every hospital in the country. I would wager there are VERY few, private or public institutions, that do NOT receive federal, and or state subsidies in one form or another. Medicare alone nearly insures every caregiver works for an institution receiving taxpayer dollars.
Your particular example, the death row/hangman's job, isn't a very apt analogy. Here's why:
Someone "pulling the switch" on a condemned man is almost always a volunteer, particularly as it pertains to the healthcare providers that are on hand to make sure the prisoner doesn't suffer "cruel and unusual punishment."
In addition, our prison system has only TWO basic functions, incarceration and parole/probation management, and of course, executions.
Not only that, but he has been convicted by a jury or judge, and is legally bound over for execution.
Not so in the case of something like abortion, which by definition is a CHOICE. Healthcare providers offer a wide range of services, very few of which have anything to do with providing death.
Also, being intimately involved with healthcare professionals on a daily basis, I know first hand that most people in the healthcare industry are there because they are compassionate, caring people, that seek to serve LIFE.
I'm quite certain very few healthcare providers go into the field because they desire to offer death as a viable alternative to the care they provide.
They have a non-denominational chapel in a great many hospitals, and people routinely bring their spiritual advisors into this setting.
No one, no matter what their job is, should be required to do ANYTHING they deem contrary to their personal, religious convictions.
I too find most healthcare professionals to be truly compassionate, sincere individuals and I would never impose my values on them - or you, for that matter. I do believe, however, that as long a something is legal and government sponsored, people should not have to push people out of the way in order to obtain legal health services - particularly those that are time sensitive and affect physical, emotional and spiritual well-being. Dropping the so-called 'conscience' regulation is intended to remove those people so inclined from impeding vulnerable people from obtaining information/services/care. It does not force anyone to do anything, it merely takes away the protections from those who in bad faith break the law.
Hence, if I am for or against something, and the law differs from my position, it is up to me to either not place myself in the way of someone else or do my best to change things. Personally I am very pro-birth control and condoms as I believe this serves best to prevent unexpected/unwanted pregnancies and prevent the need for abortions. I do believe that human nature is what it is and that unborn children should not pay the price of a society refusing to deal with reality. Of course, this has nothing to do with chastity, which I think is a wonderful accomplishment for the people who manage to practice it. Who are we to effectively punish those unable or unwilling to rise to that task? Particularly if their personal beliefs don't hold this as sacred as someone else's.
Again, thanks for your passion, your comment and sharing your viewpoint.
There is one caveat, of course, if we are talking about medical ethics rather than what is legal. That is another very long discourse.
"Until all the children who are already here are loved and well cared for,
I must remain pro-birth control and pro-choice,
my Catholic up-bringing notwithstanding."
Contrary to the above statement,
in the instruction manual (The Bible) that our creator gave us,
...
God tells us to:
instead of preventing conception, to
"increase in number and fill the earth"
(Genesis 9:1)
and, instead of abortion, to
"choose life,
so that you and your children may live"
(Deuteronomy 30:19)
God created us,
God knows what is best for us,
let's follow God's advice.
References:
Genesis 9:1-28
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9;&version=31;
Deuteronomy 30:11-19
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy30:11-19;&version=31;
The Bible, and the "Traditional Catholic Perspective"
http://www.kolbecenter.org/
An example? That women can be stoned to death for adultery, daughters can be sold into slavery, etc. I think if there was a creator, he forgot to give us the second manual. No offense meant, but just as I telling others to use condoms, you tell others that only your God knows the way humans should live.
Although I have no argument with people who decide to have children and populate the earth, I do have an argument with those who insist I believe in their god. I would prefer they believe in mine, of course. I am not trying to be cute or obnoxious, but scripture-quoting doesn't move me. Sorry. There are too many abused, unwanted, neglected and abandoned children in this world.