Nuncio and US Bishops
EJ Dionne reported a few weeks back that some US bishops had received a rap on the knuckles from the nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi. He told them in blunt terms that their “harsh attacks on Obama threaten to make the church look partisan”. This did not surprise me one bit, following the increased disconnect between the Vatican and the US episcopate, some of whom in recent days seemed to have inexplicably handed over the steering wheel to an extreme fringe. Still, I was not sure if Dionne’s claim was true – this would be a very significant intervention for a nuncio. I recently asked a very well-placed source, and one not at all favorable to Obama, about this claim. He told he that it was completely true. So there you have it.
Comments are closed.
And this from Cardinal Cordes on the eve of the Obama visit:
“The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process. Woe to those who reduce the mission of the Church to a worldly pressure group seeking political results.”
The vatican is very concerned about the American Church appearing more and more to be controlled by the lunatic fringe. The ND sideshow was the last straw.
So there you have it.
These days MM sounds increasingly like Obama pontificating about police procedures at his press conference.
Good post, MM.
On the question of the American Church, I have to side with the Vatican. The U.S. Bishops, collectively and/or individually, have acted in ways over the last couple decades that fails to comport with the nobility of their office. Not always but often enough, their actions have tended to undermine the moral authority rightfully invested in their office. Too often they appear as anachronistic rather than vital.
The quote above from Cardinal Cordes is on the money.
Frankly, my suspicion is the U.S. Bishops are being advised poorly.
For St. Peter’s sake Ron… this is supposed to be a site that has intellectual discussions. MM may not even be pro-Obama for all we know. Why assume such without detailed facts? Someone could just as easily say “Ron sounds like Fox News”… and I’m sure that would be just as inappropriate as what you’ve said regarding MM.
We are all Christians here trying to understand society and work out what in the world is wrong with our mad mad world!
I’m so tired of Christians contributing to the current “If I say something loudest than I must be right” mentality of our country. It’s time we start having good academic dialogue and debate! No more name calling and no more acting like Keith Olbermann on the left and Bill O’Reilly on the right.
David Wheeler-Reed
“Academic dialogue”??? And you start the so-called “dialogue” with the ludicrous suggestion that “MM may not even be pro-Obama for all we know”???
Get real. MM did all he could to drive away the people on this blog who could not support a pro-abortion president, and now he feels free to post unsubstantiated rumors (from a “well-placed source,” no less) to the effect that the “ND sideshow was the last straw” . . . for Obama fans like the Holy Father, apparently.
There is no possible way to have an “intellectual discussion” about such a ridiculous claim, no matter how much Team Obama may bloviate to the contrary.
Actually, I think the bishops have by and large been fair to Obama. That’s not to say that they haven’t criticized him for his support of legal abortion, which is of course the bishops’ right as American citizens and duty as successors to the Apostles. But they have shown a great willingness to dialogue–witness Cardinal George’s St. Patrick’s Day meeting with the President–and gave him a huge opening on the “common ground” front with their strong endorsement of the Pregnant Women Support Act. It’s Obama who has refused to reciprocate. Though I strongly support him on other issues, the fact remains that he’s been nothing but talk when it comes to initiatives to reduce abortions. His only actions on the issue thus far–the reversal of the Mexico City policy, increased funding for ESCR–will result in more unborn deaths, not fewer.
To the President’s credit, though, he did indicate several days ago in an interview with ABC that he does not want to see funding for abortion in a health care plan. We’ll have to see how that pans out.
It is really a minority of the bishops who are the problem, less than 20%. Unfortunately the majority of bishops tend to be quiet, allowing the minority to appear to speak for the Church. It is made worse by certain political organizations of wealthy lay Catholics taking selective quotes of selective bishops and broadcasting them as doctrine.
Nevertheless, the Nuncio is correct. The Church was on the road to looking a few steps away from the “birthers.”
http://www.birthers.org
“There is no possible way to have an “intellectual discussion” about such a ridiculous claim”
Of course it is possible. All that is necessary is to engage in an exchange of ideas rather than a one-sided expression of anger. That is a goal well within reach, if one is disposed to make it such.
Kurt nailed it perfectly. The majority of bishops remain silent rather than subject themselves to “the Jenkins treatment” at the hands of the rightwing self styled “Catholic” media who specializes at whipping the willing into a frenzy at every opportunity. It’s great for fundraising. BTW, whatever happened to the website taking reverse pledges? **I was going to give ND my usual hundred million but since they invited Obama, I will now give them NOTHING!!!** Last I heard they were up to a negative $400 million, or was it billion? Trillion?
Comparing the bishops to the birthers is a bit of a stretch. The birthers are dedicated to advancing a conspiracy theory that has been disproved many times over and that is ultimately rooted in a deep-seated racism. The bishops have a policy disagreement with Obama on an issue of fundamental importance for all Catholics, a fact that the President himself acknowledges and respects. I’m less concerned about the bishops than about the many conservative Catholic bloggers and commentators out there (Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, quite a few EWTN priests, etc.) who seem to think that the Church’s social Magesterium is interchangeable with the Republican Party platform. Don’t forget that these same commentators lambasted the bishops for supposedly not being tough enough on the Democrats in their document on faithful citizenship.
David Wheeler-Reed must be new to this blog. If he doesn’t know MM is pro-Obama and he can’t see the irony in a statement like this:
“I’m so tired of Christians contributing to the current “If I say something loudest than I must be right” mentality of our country. ”
That’s exactly what has happened on this blog. It has become an echo chamber of like minded people. Anyone with a different opionion is part of the ‘extreme fringe’ and they have been driven away by louder voices.
To standmickey:
Do you have a link to the ABC interview? I’ve seen him say that he didn’t want the issue to get us “distracted” in considering health care and I’ve seen Orszag say that they wouldn’t rule out the possibility of putting it in the bill, but I haven’t seen reports of Obama saying he wanted it out.
To David Wheeler-Reed:
I’m not a Christian. (I have family who are Catholic, though.) I’m new to this blog, so if there’s an expectation that comments are supposed to be made by people of faith, then I wasn’t aware of it.
To the new people: you may need to get used to comments along the lines of Ron and Tim F above. the fact is, the “new voice” makes many people very uncomfortable. I’m proud of the fact that we stand apart from the dominant trend in the Catholic blogosphere, the cozy alliance between Catholicism and certain aspects of American politics (the psuedo-conservative movement, the Republican party) and culture (American exceptionalism, Calvinist dualism, individualism, consumerism, glorification of the military). I find the allegation that we are an “echo chamber” more than a little ironic, given the alternatives out there. I would prefer the term “haven of sanity” !! :)
EJ Dionne reported a few weeks back that some US bishops had received a rap on the knuckles from the nuncio,
“Some?” Which ones? I can think of “some” who were too partisan and probably a little too blunt. However, “some” does not signal strong Vatican disapproval of the way the 70 (slightly more than “some” mind you) American bishops responded to Obama at Notre Dame nor does it suggest that the Vatican really loves Obama.
Not to mention that you are not Rocco. Why on earth should we give credence to your source? I know you’re trying to keep stuff anonymous, but really like we told Tito (though his was a far more serious case) you need public evidence to make public claims.
he fact is, the “new voice” makes many people very uncomfortable.
It does seem to make some uncomfortable. One wonders if it’s really for the reasons that you think it is.
I find the allegation that we are an “echo chamber” more than a little ironic, given the alternatives out there.
You’re a left wing echo chamber; most other sites are a right wing echo chamber. I suppose you could be proud of being more partisan and not as Catholic in a different way from most other blogs.
Of course, I say this without really knowing the new contributors (Other than Mark, who is a troll). I hope they work out.
Michael D
While you have reasons to say “ok, I don’t know who the source is, so I don’t accept it,” I can tell you, from knowing MM in person and who his sources are, they are valid. The problem is, MM is unable to give out the source because of who it is. So again, you are right, that causes a problem. The question is, does it sound right? If so, you have reason to accept the source, knowing you could be wrong.
But calling Mark a troll will get you a ban. Someone who is Catholic, and constantly points to Catholic expectations is not a troll.
Henry:
I brought up the source issue b/c I think it is unwise to cite sources (one source too, which isn’t quite up to journalistic standards) that are so anonymous. There really isn’t any way for me to judge their statements other than my own prejudices. As you said, “The question is, does it sound right?” That’s not going to advance the conversation.
But calling Mark a troll will get you a ban. Someone who is Catholic, and constantly points to Catholic expectations is not a troll.
Very well; I will not repeat it.
I do wonder how it is that I get threatened with a ban b/c I challenge the wisdom of making someone a contributor while others are far less charitable and in return are made contributors!
With all the negative postings about “right wing” bloggers [Hannity, and company], whom I never read, life being as short as it is, I am curious to note that there has not been much criticism about the left wing bloggers.
For example, the rather vicious diatribe by the editor of the National Catholic Reporter against Patrick O’Reilly for daring to criticise the president of Notre Dame.
I would be interested to read some commentary on the memoirs of Archbishop Weakland [preface by the former editor of COMMONWEAL] in which he defends “the genital expression” of his love for the friend who blackmailed him to give up $450,000 from church funds. The book received a praiseful review in that same journal, which was strongly condemnatory of pedophile priests in Boston. Abp. Weakland acknowledges that the problem existed in Milwaukee; he solved by moving the offenders from one parish to another. He thought the boys would get over it.
I note that Abp. Weakland was recommended for his post by the Apostolic Nuncio, Abp. Jadot, who also recommended several other curious prelates. So much for Apostolic Nuncios.
My mistake; it was an interview with Katie Couric on CBS. He said:
“As you know, I’m pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it’s appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.”
Despite MM’s claim of Vox Nova “exceptionalism,” there are already some well established voices that use the Catholic faith to push a leftist partisan agenda. Several of the regulars at Commonweal, for example, were also leaders in Catholics-for-Obama groups, and they routinely ban people whose posts express reservations about the One. The blog at America likewise screens for anti-Obama sentiment. No matter what the pretext, the real litmus test is abortion, with the Obama-ists now insisting that pro-”choice” is the 2009 version of pro-life.
Several of the regulars at Commonweal, for example, were also leaders in Catholics-for-Obama groups, and they routinely ban people whose posts express reservations about the One.
I wonder if you are right. I have made honest attempts to find Catholic writers with reservations about the President — people who decided not to vote for him or have deep policy differences with him but are presenting it as their judgment and opinion rather than an article of faith which all must believe in.
Such voices have been scarce. I would enjoy hearing from them. If they are being censored, that is a shame.
Several of the regulars at Commonweal, for example, were also leaders in Catholics-for-Obama groups, and they routinely ban people whose posts express reservations about the One.
ron,
This is just ridiculous. Yes it is true that Grant Gallicho and Cathleen Kaveny were on Obama’s Catholic Advisory Committee, but nobody gets banned from dotCommonweal for opposing Obama. A few people have been banned for being hostile, personal, and using the forum to repeatedly castigate the forum itself and the other participants. If you are in a forum where you feel compelled to repeatedly criticize –not just disagree with, but personally criticize — the the forum itself and the people who maintain it, then you ought to go somewhere else.
“Several of the regulars at Commonweal, for example, were also leaders in Catholics-for-Obama groups, and they routinely ban people whose posts express reservations about the One. The blog at America likewise screens for anti-Obama sentiment.”
This is so ridiculous it’s laughable – a perfect example of conservative paranoia.
To standmickey:
“he does not want to see funding for abortion in a health care plan.” I don’t think that that is accurate. The ‘distracted’ comment is the same one that I’d heard before. That is a completely noncommittal response. I have yet to hear him or anyone speaking on behalf of the administration take a position one way or the other. I believe that right now he is just trying not to alienate people on either side of the issue, and that isn’t reassuring.
To Henry Karlson: I posed a similar question to David Wheeler-Reed, but now I’m wondering if I count as a troll. I’m not trying to crash anyone’s party here. For what it’s worth- my mother’s family are Andrew Greeley style Catholics, and my father is an agnostic Unitarian.
My guess is that they both would like to count me as members of their church. They both take me to services when they can (additionally my mom prays to Saint Monica hoping I’ll turn to theology like her son rather than pursuing academic philosophy and my dad takes me to events like ‘The Life of Brian’ movie night and Pagan nature ceremonies), but I am an atheist who identifies more closely with secular philosophers like Daniel Dennett than either of my parents. I am also pro-life. So…
if I’m trolling, I won’t comment anymore. (It’s hard to figure out the rules sometimes in online communities- but I figure it’s best to ask and be clear.)
Like others mentioned, I’d be interested to know which bishops and which statements people are referring to. Obama Catholics indiscriminately label any bishop’s statement against Obama’s abortion tsunami as “partisan attacks on Obama.” Ironically, the same people, such as Cathleen Kaveny, write articles claiming that Reverend Wright’s “God Damn America” was civil and Archbishop Chaput’s “Little Murders” was not. If someone is labeled uncivil we can almost unfailingly predict who the labeler is and who the recipient of the label is based on the substance of their views. Labeling is just a front for substantive disagreement, posturing itself as objective, above the fray commentary. Dionne and Minion are Obama sympathizers, and they are the fonts of this unnamed source material. Not a coincidence. Mickey is right that the bishops’ actual statements are not unjustified. It’s easy to say “the bishops are mean” and not easy to specify a handful of legitimately problematic statements, much less enough such statements to tarnish the bishops broadly. The simple fact is that over 75 bishops criticized the honoring of Obama at Notre Dame, and disagreement with their substantive position is what people mean by “the bishops are mean and partisan.” Which begs the question.
Ironically, the same people, such as Cathleen Kaveny, write articles claiming that Reverend Wright’s “God Damn America” was civil and Archbishop Chaput’s “Little Murders” was not.
Matt,
I think you are misrepresenting Professor Kaveny. I don’t recall her classifying people as civil and uncivil. Perhaps you could provide some quotes?
As I recall, she felt that Wright’s speech could be classified as “prophetic” — prophetic speech being a rhetorical style that she has a special interest in and I believe is writing a book about. To say that something is prophetic speech is not to endorse it.
The specific objection to Chaput that I recall (and this is her complaint about many in the pro-life movement) was that he elevated the unborn to a special class of greater worth than the “post-born.” Here is an explicit instance of that from Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho: “They took the life of an innocent,” Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. “Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored.” The unborn, it seems, are to many pro-lifers a better class of persons than the people who are born and grow up.
Chaput’s statement about justifying ourselves to the victims of abortion in the afterlife if we voted for Obama seemed did not seem to take into account that, if that is how things really work in the afterlife, there would be endless numbers of people to whom we would also have to justify ourselves — for example, those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the people who perished as the result of genocide in Darfur. What did we do for (or against) them?
David if those bishops’ statements are what counts as “partisan attacks”, I think my point is demonstrated that the labelers are in substantive disagreement.
The Kaveny article speaks for itself: Wright acceptable discourse and Chaput in comparison(!) not. She like others imposes a system of labels, hers with an academic posture, but the dismissive result is the same, and, shazam! it favors her candidate. Are you surprised? Putting the Wright and Chaput statements side by side and giving thumbs up to the former and down to the latter in terms of civil groundrules is laughably biased, and more humorous by taking itself seriously as an objective academic analysis.
I don’t have the link right now, you’ve seen it, it’s a pdf and can be googled.
David Nickol :
I think that you’re being too hard on the pro-life movement generally and Chaput in particular. I consider Ross Douthat to be anything but an extremist (he’s working for NYT for heaven’s sake) and he spoke approvingly of the Chaput remark you mention.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/matters_of_life_and_death.php
While I understand your complaint about a ‘special status’ for the unborn because I don’t believe that such a status should be accorded, I am not unsympathetic to those who feel that way. Ask yourself if it would be more morally offensive to kill an adult or to kill a child or a baby. Many people do think that there is an important difference.
Of course, we didn’t cause the genocide in Darfur, and more importantly Obama hasn’t (IMO) shown us much on that front. If we have to account for Darfur, it won’t make any difference if you favored Obama or McCain.
Also, Iraq policy was pretty much determined by the Status of Forces Agreement, and as I like to say, I haven’t found any of Obama’s ‘change’ in the SoFA. Do you think that Obama is being pro-life in Afghanistan.
Perhaps more importantly, the sheer numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t comparable. The fact that you use that as your example makes me wonder if like many you think of the unborn as a special class of lesser worth than the “post-born.”
Gerald L. Campbell Says July 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“On the question of the American Church, I have to side with the Vatican. The U.S. Bishops, collectively and/or individually, have acted in ways over the last couple decades that fails to comport with the nobility of their office. Not always but often enough, their actions have tended to undermine the moral authority rightfully invested in their office. Too often they appear as anachronistic rather than vital”.
The writings of the late Msgr. George Kelly are to point here. He lays the blame for the troubles in the Church in the U.S. at the feet of the bishops. He does not call them pusillanimous – because he was polite.
The USCCB is a prisoner of its bureaucracy whence the shallow thinking and turgidness of the prose of the pronunciamentos.
He could not foresee the group cowardice in the face of the pedophile priests.
The quote above from Cardinal Cordes is on the money.
Frankly, my suspicion is the U.S. Bishops are being advised poorly.
Just wanted to point out that having some bloggers with some left-wing views does not make Vox Nova a left-wing blog. One of the reasons I accepted the invitation to blog here was that it was offered to me by someone with whom I have substantial disagreement on some issues.
He was clear that Vox Nova’s mandate was to find people who loved the Church and wrote intelligently, not to have a group of contributor’s that all agree. Some of us are further right and some further left. Some of us, thank God, are darn hard to classify.
I don’t always agree with MM, but that’s part of the reason I’m glad he’s here.
David Nickol Says July 28, 2009 at 11:16 am
“The specific objection to Chaput that I recall (and this is her complaint about many in the pro-life movement) was that he elevated the unborn to a special class of greater worth than the “post-born.” Here is an explicit instance of that from Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho: “They took the life of an innocent,” Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. “Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored.” The unborn, it seems, are to many pro-lifers a better class of persons than the people who are born and grow up”.
They also cannot defend themselves. Children are a better class of people than adults, as Our Lord indicates “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea”. [Matt 18:6].
“Chaput’s statement about justifying ourselves to the victims of abortion in the afterlife if we voted for Obama seemed did not seem to take into account that, if that is how things really work in the afterlife, there would be endless numbers of people to whom we would also have to justify ourselves — for example, those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the people who perished as the result of genocide in Darfur. What did we do for (or against) them?”
[As a simple matter of courtesy, could one not use his title? Or would this reduce him to just another opinion maker?].
You ask “What did we do for [or against] them? Could we have done something for or against them? You limit yourself to three areas. Why not all the areas in world in which there are wars and starvation and the promotion of abortion? Should e nt be looking to stop baby killing in our own country, something we can effect?
Frank Says July 27, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“Several of the regulars at Commonweal, for example, were also leaders in Catholics-for-Obama groups, and they routinely ban people whose posts express reservations about the One. The blog at America likewise screens for anti-Obama sentiment.”
“This is so ridiculous it’s laughable – a perfect example of conservative paranoia”.
Perhaps it matches the left-wing paranoia. I think it exceeds it, but then I don’t read the loudest onservative blogs.
What is laughable, were it not sad, is that “progressives” {Prof. Kaveney’s self description] seem not realize that they are being water-carriers for Planned Unparenthood.
Children are a better class of people than adults, as Our Lord indicates . . .
Gabriel,
You can’t be serious.
Gabriel Austin,
Do you have any references to Msg. George Kelley?
David you can’t be serious in taking a common sense statement that killing the innocent and children is a partularly heinous sort of killing, and construing it as some kind of incorrect view creating privleged classes of personhood inconsistent with Catholicism (which does value children specially because of our Lord’s words and also has a preferential option for the poor which I know you have heard of), and then further taking that mischaracterization and suggesting that it qualifies as evidence of partisan attack–thus by your logic criticism of abortion as particularly heinous is ipso facto a partisan attack. But even if you are serious, it doesn’t make your point any less strange.
Matt,
Regarding the unborn as a special class, do you agree with this statement by Archbishop Sobrinho?
There has been a perception for decades that some pro-lifers think the unborn are more important than the “post-born.” It’s summed up in the quip, “Some people think that life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
. . . . suggesting that it qualifies as evidence of partisan attack . . .
Could you point out to me where I have said anything at all in this thread about partisan attacks?
David of course I agree to the truth that torturing and killing children is an especially heinous kind of killing, among the many kinds of killing. It’s why Ivan Karamozov used torture of children as his ultimate example of the problem of evil.
David of course I agree to the truth that torturing and killing children is an especially heinous kind of killing, among the many kinds of killing.
Matt,
Do you agree with this statement: “Abortion is much ore serious than killing an adult?” Please don’t rephrase.
David I’ve already answered the question–in the sense that killing children is an especially heinous kind of killing, which is the sense that the Bishop and everyone who says this means, then yes it’s more serious in that sense.
Of course killing children is in a sense more serious than killing adults. This is why Ivan Karamozov used the example of children, as opposed to talking about injustice against adults. But if you don’t have an instinctive view that there is something special about children, if you think it’s an aberrant view, if you even argue it’s inconsistent with Catholicism, then no amount argument will convince you. Christianity has a preference for the poor, but that such a preference is not meant in any sense contrary to the equal dignity of all persons as creatures of God.
And if you think such a natural statement is accurately characterized as applying in any and every other sense, such as in the idea that it’s OK not to care for adults, or that children are metaphysically more truly persons than adults, then you are not able to see your own bias.
Matt,
Ivan is of course talking about the suffering of children. He’s not talking about abortion. I don’t think of abortion as children suffering. Even granting that a fetus is a human being, it does not seem to me that an abortion causes suffering (except in late-term abortions) grisly as abortion techniques are.
I think that the killing of a child will often have a more emotional impact than the killing of an adult because there is something in most people’s make-up (including mine) that causes them to have special affection for children. But I think it is flat-out wrong to say, “Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent.” The Archbishop was not saying, “It breaks our heart when a child is killed.” He was saying abortion is a greater moral offense than the murder of an adult. I don’t see how that can be seen as anything than granting a special status to the unborn — saying their lives are worth more than the lives of others. And of course the irony is that if they are aborted, they die in this exalted state of being unborn, but if they are allowed to be born and grow up, they become adults!
killing children is an especially heinous kind of killing . . .
For which you — who believe that abortion is killing children — do not want the mothers to be punished.
“you — who believe that abortion is killing children”
That about says it all about the polar opposite nature of our views, and of your obsession against the simple idea that abortion is especially bad because it kills children.
That about says it all about the polar opposite nature of our views, and of your obsession against the simple idea that abortion is especially bad because it kills children.
Matt,
I am disputing the notion that “abortion is much more serious than killing an adult.” On the one hand, you seem to dispute the idea that some pro-lifers (like Archbishops Sobrinho and Chaput) view the unborn as a special class of persons, more worthy than the rest of us. On the other hand, you seem to be advocating that view yourself.
Part of what is getting twisted here, it seems to me, is the idea of an “innocent human being.” The Catechism says, “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
The notion of innocence here doesn’t mean something like “the innocence of a newborn babe.” It is a distortion to claim that murdering a child is more serious than murdering an adult because a child is “more innocent” than an adult. How many of us are innocent like children? And for those of us who are not, does that mean that for us to be killed unjustly would not be murder, because we are not “innocent”?
This is why there is much truth to the quote that “a lot of opposition to abortion is sheer moral sentimentality which turns the fetus into a fetish.” It is the notion that fetuses are really closer to angels than “post-born” humans, who are not as innocent as the unborn.
David,
“This is why there is much truth to the quote that “a lot of opposition to abortion is sheer moral sentimentality which turns the fetus into a fetish.” It is the notion that fetuses are really closer to angels than “post-born” humans, who are not as innocent as the unborn.”
I don’t know where this quote is from, but it makes no sense. You began by arguing that abortion should not be seen as worse than killing an adult. That is a point on which I already stated that I agree, although I understand why some would feel that it is. It is the same reason that some feel that killing a child is worse than killing an adult.
Now you’ve turned the argument on its head and said that this (arguably sentimental preference for saving children and prenates rather than adults) is a reason to consider “a lot of opposition to abortion is sheer sentimentality”. If someone felt that killing a child is worse than killing an adult, then regardless of whether they were being sentimental in thinking so, that doesn’t mean that opposing the killing of children is sheer sentimentality!
David is failing or at this point refusing to distinguish different senses of words, including the common sense, and this is a basic fallacy of logic. He’s insisting, not only without justification but with conclusive evidence to the contrary, that if someone makes the statement that killing children is worse than killing adults, they must mean it in any and every possible sense of the phrase, including all those other senses where the Church explicitly teaches equality. This allows David to allege numerous and bizarre straw man inconsistencies. Saying killing children is worse than killing adults and also that everyone has the equal right to life is perfectly consistent, rational and understandable, not to mention the fact that it accords with fundamental Christianity and basic human decency.
Archbishop Fernando Capalla of Davao, the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines said in a weekly radio broadcast aired today, “To me the murder in abortion is graver than the murder of an adult.”
From a message by Cathleen Kaveny on dotCommonweal:
Gerald L. Campbell Says:
July 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“Gabriel Austin,
Do you have any references to Msg. George Kelly?”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ACADEMIC/CATHCAMP.HTM
This is a good start: his description of the deleterious effects of the refusal by catholic colleges to accept – even to discuss [so much for academic freedom, not to mention ability] – Ex corde ecclesiae.
And the bishops’ backing off from a confrontation with them. I find particularly charming the fact that college presidents have no special ranking in the hierarchy, yet act as though they do. I suppose it is envy: bishops are granted and have greater powers than college professors and presidents et hoc genus omne.
Ralph McInerny gives a short summary of Msgr. Kelly’s life and doings at
http://www.nd.edu/~ndethics/inspires/documents/George_Kelley.pdf
He has written a dozen good books on the Church in the U.S. There is no missing the view that the parlous condition of our Church is the fault of the bishops’ failure to stand up and be counted.
David Nickol Says July 28, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“Children are a better class of people than adults, as Our Lord indicates . . .”
“Gabriel,
You can’t be serious”.
Hey, who am I to argue with Our Lord?
Hey, who am I to argue with Our Lord?
Gabriel,
I wouldn’t suggest that. But I would recommend checking a few good commentaries. Mine suggest that “little ones” in Matthew 18:16 and especially in the source for this verse (Mark 9:42) does not refer to children.
David Nickol Says July 29, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“Hey, who am I to argue with Our Lord? Gabriel”,
“I wouldn’t suggest that. But I would recommend checking a few good commentaries. Mine suggest that “little ones” in Matthew 18:16 and especially in the source for this verse (Mark 9:42) does not refer to children”.
The ones I consulted are pretty clear that the reference is to children. Which of yours [uncited] disagree. [Wesley says it means weak sinners. But then I am not a Methodist].
I went looking at Fr. Brown’s NT commentary. I ran across his remark that Our Lord’s question about searching for the lost sheep would be impractical in a large parish. The 99 would be unhappy.
I love it when commentators tell Our Lord what He means.
David Nickol Says July 29, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“From a message by Cathleen Kaveny on dotCommonweal:
The charge has long been made that pro-life activists don’t care about people after they’re born. I’ve recently begun studying that charge, and thinking about its basis…”
The professor does not give numbers or specifics. This would destroy her argument.
To pick up a word used in another message, such a statement is a slander.
Matt Bowman Says July 29, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“David is failing or at this point refusing to distinguish different senses of words, including the common sense, and this is a basic fallacy of logic. He’s insisting, not only without justification but with conclusive evidence to the contrary, that if someone makes the statement that killing children is worse than killing adults, they must mean it in any and every possible sense of the phrase, including all those other senses where the Church explicitly teaches equality. This allows David to allege numerous and bizarre straw man inconsistencies. Saying killing children is worse than killing adults and also that everyone has the equal right to life is perfectly consistent, rational and understandable, not to mention the fact that it accords with fundamental Christianity and basic human decency”.
This is true. It is why I asked if he were a lawyer. The technique is the one attacked at length by Plato in THE SOPHIST. A short description is given in Josef Pieper’s ABUSE OF LANGUAGE, ABUSE OF POWER.
An extended excellent commentary on THE SOPHIST is that by Stanley Rosen.
Why in a catastrophe do we say “women and children first”?
Gabriel Austin,
Thanks for the references.
I have things published by the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars but was unable to connect it to Msgr. Kelly. The piece by Ralph McInerny was interesting. I’ve felt much of what Msgr. Kelly felt beginning around 1968. Maritain wrote The Peasant of the Garonne. I identify with his musings.
The professor does not give numbers or specifics. This would destroy her argument.
Gabriel,
People have been saying pro-lifers only care about fetuses and don’t care about people once they were born as long as there has been a pro-life movement. It was during the Reagan administration that Barney Frank said pro-life legislators believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” Professor Kaveny was not saying it was true. She was looking into what gave people that impression.
Surely you are not denying that many critics of the pro-life movement think that all pro-lifers care about is fetuses.
The pro-life movement is more or less a political movement aimed at stopping abortion and saving fetuses. I think that counts as a true statement. However one cannot use that as a basis to conclude that people who are pro-life do not care about anything else. (The environmental movement is about preserving nature, but that doesn’t mean that environmentalists care for nothing else.) The Consistent Life Ethic (which I believe had its start with Cardinal Bernadin [sp?] and his ‘seamless garment’ movement) is a fine example of an ideology that is pro-life but also explicitly embraces other causes.
However one cannot use that as a basis to conclude that people who are pro-life do not care about anything else.
ockraz,
I couldn’t agree more. But the criticism of some in the pro-life movement is that they care only about fetuses and are at best indifferent to, or actively work against, causes that would help the unborn once they are born.
Pro-lifers tend to be political conservatives, and they tend to be in favor of capital punishment, they are more likely to defend torture (both “seamless garment” issues), and they are also more likely to oppose government help for the poor (because it causes a “culture of dependency”). Here’s part of the quote the concept of “fetus fetish” came from:
The authentic Catholic position on abortion has two parts. First, it should be illegal, and second, society must be changed “so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person.” In the United States, it tends to be Republicans/conservatives who are in favor of criminalizing abortion, and Democrats/liberals who believe it is the responsibility of the government to take care of its citizens. That is why it is so difficult to reach agreement on abortion. Each side is in favor of only half of the solution. Here is a paragraph I am fond of quoting from the Catholic Church’s Declaration on Procured Abortion
Does that sound like something conservative Republican pro-lifers would be in favor of?
David Nickol Says July 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“The professor does not give numbers or specifics. This would destroy her argument”.
“Gabriel,
People have been saying pro-lifers only care about fetuses and don’t care about people once they were born as long as there has been a pro-life movement. It was during the Reagan administration that Barney Frank said pro-life legislators believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” Professor Kaveny was not saying it was true. She was looking into what gave people that impression.
Surely you are not denying that many critics of the pro-life movement think that all pro-lifers care about is fetuses”.
David,
I can but believe that you do not read your own messages.
“People” and “many critics”. Which people – specifically?. Which critics? Where did they say this? What did they exactly? Many people believe believe many strange things. Next will you be saying that it is wicked for a dentist to care only about teeth; a cardiologist only about hearts.
There are people who believe that killing the child in the womb is ruinous to our culture, to our civilization. And for all the attached problems. So did the abolitionists concentrate on the scandal of slavery. Were they wrong?
That critics would say such is not unexpected; it is one of their defensive positions.
But without citing sources and figures, to say that pro-lifers care only about what the critics call fetuses is a slander. You must not know many pro-lifers, nor read the literature. And I do not mean only the Catholic literature.
[As a debating point, you should have avoided citing the homosexual senator from Massachusetts. He it was who put a former boyfriend into a six figure job at Freddie Mac, which is overseen by the committee of which that senator is the chairman].
David,
“Does that sound like something conservative Republican pro-lifers would be in favor of?”
I don’t know why I should care what they’d favor. Seriously. You’re asking me about the preferences of a stereotype. You are citing what I consider to be an unsympathetic attribution of motives and ideology to a stereotype.
I’m trying to figure out what you’re really up to here.
Is this supposed to somehow be relevant to the issue of voting for pro-choice politicians? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the feeling that you think that this justifies treating the pro-life agenda as ‘just one issue amongst many’.
What difference does it make if prenates go straight to heaven? If there are millions of them being killed in our country every year, and if some politicians defend that practice as not merely legal, but a ‘fundamental right’, then what is the relevance of whether the unborn are somehow more angelic than everyone else?
For my part, I did think about the relative number of deaths [not apologies in heaven- that just seemed like folderol] from the policies of an Obama administration vs. a McCain one, and not just the deaths of the unborn. I voted for McCain because of it, and I’m still convinced it was the right choice. In fact, I don’t really see much of a case for the opposition.
David Nickol Says July 31, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“However one cannot use that as a basis to conclude that people who are pro-life do not care about anything else”.
“ockraz,
I couldn’t agree more. But the criticism of some in the pro-life movement is that they care only about fetuses and are at best indifferent to, or actively work against, causes that would help the unborn once they are born”.
May one presume by “criticism of some” you mean directed at some? [References would help this discussion. Or should I write "Mr. Some vigorously denies your comment"].
“Actively work against the poor?”.
As to the truth of the matter, it is simply not true.
You continue:
“Here is a paragraph I am fond of quoting from the Catholic Church’s Declaration on Procured Abortion
“On the contrary, it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption – a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion”.
“Does that sound like something conservative Republican pro-lifers would be in favor of?”
The “Conservative Republican Pro-Lifers” I know would most certainly agree.
I believe, David, you are living back in some world where 19th Century Bible belters and New England Puritan elites were predominant. Many Republicans [although I fail to see what a political label has to do with the discussion] are very religious folk, conscious of their duty to their neighbors, and spending time and energy to help the poor AS A RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION.
It is the Planned Unparenthood people who do not spend their “family” planning money on diapers and baby food.
I think, David, you must get out some more, and spend time with your Conservative Republican neighbors and not spend so much time with radio and television. Find out how many poor people are religious.