About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Good Catholics: The Battle Over Abortion in the Catholic Church

I am Irish-Italian, so it would not surprise that I was raised Catholic, though my dad was not overly concerned with religious matters and my mom was more indoctrinated than one to drill things into you as well.  By action, this was a pretty freethinking atmosphere in that if you were a good person and such, they would be satisfied. I think this was fairly typical for many Catholics and helps explain why so many can be pretty liberal while the official doctrine is not.  Noting as well that the Church does have various liberal beliefs, including in regard to social welfare matters.

Thus, as I briefed noted, various people are highlighting certain things the Pope has said, many ignoring some of the more conservative aspects. This is in part a matter of this specific pope purposely changing the focus of things, the last couple more conservative about things. This was noted in the subject book, the 1980s a notable period there that overlapped with conservative dominance in the presidency and a rising power elsewhere.  Even there, Rachel Maddow included an excerpt of Pope John Paul II being against the death penalty without noting his other less savory focuses.

I respect the good aspects of the Catholic Church and many people have done great work while being self-professed Catholics. Am I being unfair with that qualifier? The subject book concerns people who believe themselves to be Catholics, including theologians and members of the clergy in various cases, who dissent from official doctrine on matters the hierarchy deem core -- abortion being but one, along with women as priests, homosexuality and euthanasia.  There is an argument that there are matters of doubt, not related to basic matters of faith, that there can be dissent over, even if the Pope himself disagrees.

Good doctrine, though if the leadership is so wrong about it there is a problem either way, but at some point doesn't quite seem "Catholic" to me. Perhaps, it is just my bias, but to me the Catholic Church is a hierarchical institution where if the leadership says something about basic aspects of the meaning of "life" and "marriage" and so forth, it is correctly seen as basically what the Catholic doctrine is at the time.  At least, at some point, where views about women as priests, birth control, sexuality and the idea that any one person (even on basic matters of faith) can be infallible are so wrong, that it is something of a lost cause. What exactly is "Catholic" as compared to Christian overall about the remainder?

Religion often is cultural and not tied to specific matters of doctrine, so I do understand basically, I guess, but it still doesn't really work for me.  At least, at some point.  It's possible to argue that being Catholic can include "x, y and z" perhaps, but if the laity can challenge the hierarchy on basic things, and these are basic things, it starts to look like Protestantism.  The logic of contraceptives at least being acceptable using Catholic dogma, as many thought was possible in the 1960s, makes sense. So is allowing dissent -- not allowing those who disagree with official Church doctrine (which does change over time) to teach in Catholic institutions is absurd.

But, there is some limit.  Still, who am I to say what is right here?  I'm all for changing meanings and this includes Catholic doctrine and practice. The book provides an interesting account of dissenters there, starting with the issue of contraception and then abortion itself. Catholic views over abortion did change over time though basically in scope -- abortion was always seen as wrong for some reason but it being "murder" from the time of conception as compared to necessary to regulate sex and marriage developed over time. This is important since the Catholic Church grew to be able to live with legalized contraception but not abortion.

The book is more focused on "the battle," including the lobbying on both sides, than a complete look at the full understanding of the beliefs of the abortion choice side. Some of that is there, including pioneer women theologians, but it isn't really the focus. The conservative values summit is going on now.  A decade ago, "value voter" was used as if such a thing only applied to conservatives.  This is fictional.  Stephen Colbert is a prime case in point.  Comes off as a very nice guy with a strong moral center along with the snark and such.  A liberal Catholic.  Hopefully, along with the usual stuff, the value summit focuses on basic things we all can support.

Putting aside my own inclination to question Catholicism that seems more Protestant (not that there is anything wrong with that) to me, bottom line, my belief is that we should try to do good and however that works best for you is fine with me.  Whatever my sentiments, loads of people believe they are Catholics and darn are considered Catholics and hold liberal beliefs that conflict with conservative Catholic doctrine. Good for them and hopefully they will have a good influence. The basic negative aspects of the doctrine, like Jesus in the gospels once noted about the poor, will be with us for some time.  The best we can hope for there is tempering it the best we can.

This book is a helpful history of the attempt, including informing us of the efforts of the conservatives in the Church and elsewhere to react as well as affect public policy.  It ends with ongoing fights over health policy. I continue to look with disfavor with special snowflakes who think snide remarks about sky gods and such make them special. Too many good people are Catholics, I will forgo the "self-expressed," to allow such things to go on without comment.  As noted in the book, religion was early on seen as an important matter for feminism to address, including showing how you can be a believer and a feminist too.  Likewise a good person overall.

[I read this before finishing it, but nothing much to add. The book got to be  bit repetitive after a while with standard themes repeating itself.  Do think that the book could have used more on what various pro-choice Catholics believe instead of focusing so much on the "battle," in particular the work of one organization.  The book covers this somewhat, but would have liked more of it. There is no one position there, but it often basically is that abortion can be immoral in certain cases even if criminalization isn't the answer.  This is not simply a libertarian pro-choice viewpoint.

IOW, what specifically "Catholic" is present here other than the people being raised Catholic.  This might help those, and I'm in there to some extent, who wonder why do people stick around given the intransigence of the official hierarchy?  At some point, there really should be a "sorry, I can't be part of this if you joint change" moment.  Simply put, understand why many don't (though as the book notes quite a few have left the Church), but again this would make explaining what about Catholicism in particular works for them that much more important.]

---

Special Note: I have in the past noted that freedom of choice is in significant part a freedom of conscience matter and this book touches upon that issue as well.  See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Unfortunately, when it comes to funding issues, one side is too often favored, burdening some people from practicing their faith. People who profess the importance of religious freedom have a duty to recognize this, even if the people involved act in ways they personally oppose. 

An evenhanded recognition of the conscience principle would result in Hyde Amendments being deemed unconstitutional.  Harris v. McRae was  a missed opportunity here, the dissents focused on other concerns. This is unfortunate especially since one did cite a case involving unemployment insurance and religious belief, opening up a clear bridge to case law. Justice Stevens later argued that abortion laws (and those applicable to refusal of treatment) can have Establishment Clause implications.  Same here.

The opinion addressed the religious liberty claims by arguing that "traditional" views on respect for life was not religious any more than a law against murder.  But, a complete ban on abortion funding, except for very narrow cases, is not quite that. We are here dealing with matters of complex religious debate and the funding ban by purpose and effect favors one over another.  There are Establishment Clause concerns there. 

The free exercise claim (deemed compelling by the lower court unlike the EC claim) was avoided because the organization in question was made up of individuals with various views (but wouldn't the ability to have funding to freely choose matter even there?) and a specific person whose religious beliefs was burdened was not involved. The others either did not raise religious claims or were not on Medicaid/pregnant.  This particularly seems dubious and just a matter of waiting for the right claimant. Since there clearly are numerous people whose abortion are funded by the government and who had the procedure in some significant part out of religious beliefs.

Same sex couples were denied a chance to have their marriage recognized for years, only able to have private / often religiously based ceremonies. Now, equal protection there is deemed by some as a burden on the religious beliefs of those who oppose same sex marriage.  This religious favoritism position is found in the reproductive liberty area as well.  Many who support reproductive liberty are not religiously focused as such, but this book underlines quite a few are.  Don't leave God to the trolls.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your .02!