Rebuttal to Oakland Post columnist, Katie WolfIn response to the recent Perspectives column, “Pope wrongly condemns condoms,” by Katie Wolf who stands by her decision to call Pope Benedict XVI an “idiot”, I take serious offense to your choice of words on behalf of Catholics everywhere.
Why is that people tiptoe around the beliefs of Judaism and even radical Islam, but make no qualms about disrespecting the Catholic faith? Catholicism has been an acceptable punching bag for decades, specifically in a time of widespread social liberalism in the U.S.
Certainly radical Islam is far more worthy of a seething column topic, but it’s unlikely we’ll see one of those from you. You’d probably worry that you’d offend believers of Islam here on campus. However, because Catholics are not in the oppressed minority, they are consistently considered fair game.
The basis of your column is sound and reasonable. It’s true that staunch Catholics oppose birth control, a method of use that could save lives in Africa. It’s an issue, among others, that causes serious internal discourse within the religion.
That aside, it’s unnecessary and insensitive for you to degrade a man who has earned more than to be called an “idiot” by a flippant young woman who clearly can’t disagree with someone and respect their position of religious leadership at the same time.
23 comments:
Though I am not a traditional blogger, nor am I conservative, I too wanted to discuss Ms. Wolf's opinionated and fairly offensive comments about The Pope.
I have been reading Ms. Wolf's uneducated, hurtful, and downright meaningless opinions in The Oakland Post all year now. And I have to say, this one takes the cake.
Myself being agnostic and quite liberal, I agree with birth control, pre-marital sex and condom use. But I definitely do NOT condone the bashing of other figures that some may look up to. Is that not the tradition of editorial journalism? I believe we should take in the opinions of others, consider the facts, and form our own opinion according to what will better society, not blindly bash the others that form theirs according to their own beliefs.
I tell you, the Pope was definitely on to something, though. Perhaps using a different word (exchanging wrong for useless maybe?) would have been more effective, and trigger a less profiling reaction from Ms. Wolf.
South Africans from two areas, which were most prevalently affected with HIV/AIDS, were randomly selected for research. According to the Guttmacher Institute 95% of South Africans have heard of condoms and 92% know where to get them!
However, only 17% of women and 14% of men spoke of consistently or EVER using condoms.
In all honesty, The Catholic Pope, a hierarchical, dominant figure in someone else's belief system, may actually be on to something.
Although I do agree with Ms. Wolf in that we must attack the epidemic head-on, with a mentality that sex will happen no matter what, I disagree with attacking the Pope for what he and the 1,402,988 other Roman Catholic personnel believes in. And that's not including ANY believers in the religion.
He may not know sex the way you know sex, but do you think he has a better relationship with people in general? And seeing as both Wolf and myself are agnostic, The Pope probably knows whatever higher power is up there better than either of us.
So give him a little credit, Ms. Wolf. And maybe stop writing just to be heard. Leave Jon Stewert's opinions on The Daily Show, and yours in your pen until you have something truly valuable to say.
Part I
On a side note I just don't understand why the catholic church would be so insistent on its flock - or any other people that aren't part of its flock for that matter - not use any form of birth control. Aren't there enough people in the world already? And if the catholic church as a rule is against abortion wouldn't birth control help prevent pregnancy in the first place and thus be a champion for no abortions? I can see this position being valid many centuries ago when the catholic church may have seen procreation as a necessity but that is no longer the case.
Or is it that the catholic church wants to exert its influence in everyone's lives and control them through sex just like it thinks everyone should buy into its religious dogma? After all, the “church” spent centuries trying to convert every native in the world to Christianity by telling them their belief system was wrong. Well, that’s not the point of my comment, just a side note – but it does demonstrate a pattern of behavior centuries old.
Part II
I’m quite unclear on your comment “Why is that people tiptoe around the beliefs of Judaism and even radical Islam, but make no qualms about disrespecting the Catholic faith?”
I’m sorry but just don’t see where anyone “tiptoes” around radical Islam. I would love to see the evidence behind this statement. Perhaps you are confusing “radical” Islam with the every day variety practiced by the truly religious. We should respect true Islamic beliefs just as the catholics think their religion should be respected.
The very definition of radical (according to Webster) as it applies here:
“3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change”
Thus radical Islam isn’t even a religion by definition but more marked departure from religion used by terrorists to justify their behavior and dislike of others. You could even call it “extreme Islam” but radical sounds better and is more encompassing of what is really at play.
Next, I would also like to see evidence that we tiptoe around people of the Jewish faith. Perhaps you are confusing the religion with the nation. They aren’t necessarily one in the same. That would be much like assuming everyone in the US is Christian which is very different from the actual case (much to the chagrin of Christians that think everyone should believe as they do). I believe you are confusing the Jewish nation with the Jewish faith.
If you recall, the world has a history of doing just the opposite with the Jewish nation. Seems I remember a story about some Egyptian? Or what about all that top-toeing that went on during the middle of the last century? People of Jewish nationality are to this day treated by many from a racist perspective and often with disdain by Christians since they think the Jews killed Jesus. That in itself is quite a conundrum since god supposedly sent Jesus to be killed but that is another discussion for another time.
Part II
If the catholic church has become a social punching bag it probably its own fault and has a great deal to do with the way its priests deal with their flock and more so with the way these many priests were shuffled around to do even more harm, along with the resulting cover ups. There has been an awareness in the church regarding this behavior for decades as well so I would caution you against holding up the catholic church as the pure example of piety. Politics are at play in this organization and are every bit as ruthless as any government or business. That is provable throughout history.
The real point of this post was to discuss your position vis-à-vis the tiptoeing thing. I began and ended with general musings since those points were also part of your post. Yes, I would love to see the evidence.
Don't you watch TV or read the paper? People are always being accused of being an anti-semitic or of racial profiling.
My point is that, specifically at OU it would be unacceptable to rip apart an Islamic belief (or more importantly-an Islamic leader)...for fear that it would create an uproar with Islamic students. Ditto with a slew of other religions. And, that's a fact.
I'm mearly creating my own minor uproar because I'm an NOT okay with someone calling the pope an "idiot".
It's not the disagreeing with Catholic views that offends me...it's the manor in which it was done. I have every right to feel that way. If you had religion, you'd understand what it means to have that kind of respect for a leader and I suspect, so would Wolf.
By the way Prometheus...you need to create a blog. I think you have enough to say to make it worth your while. Your non-conservative, non-liberal (I say that lightly), non-democrat, non-republican views are... interesting to say the least.
How often do you see a report of an anti-Catholic? Not often. How often do you see a report of anti-semitics, anti-Islam, anti-everything-but-Catholics?
Sounds about right to me.
I wish when you respond to one of my comments that you would respond to the specific issues I raise. My responses (unless I'm blatantly jacking the thread) are point-by-point in response to what you have presented.
I made three very distinct points in this commet, none of which you addressed.
Comments you make such as...
"Don't you watch TV or read the paper? People are always being accused of being an anti-semitic or of racial profiling. "
...do not address the specific points I made. If you are sharing a feeling and don't have evidence to support a position just say so.
By the way, I realize your post was about...
"I'm mearly creating my own minor uproar because I'm an NOT okay with someone calling the pope an "idiot". "
...however, you included other comments that then became part of your position. That's what I commented on. You made statements with which I disagree. I presented my position and expected you to present a factual rebutal.
By the way, I don't have anything to say and it's much more fun (and simpler) to see what you come up with and then respond. I generally keep my opinions to myself unless I feel the need to provide balance to what others may be saying. Say, have you taken time to learn the background of Prometheus?
One other thing: people in this country have a 1st amendment right to call the pope an idiot if they feel the need. It is the same 1st amendment right that protects your opportunity to write this blog and share your opinions.
Personally I feel the pope is just a politician running the smallest sovreign nation on earth and has his constituents convinved that he needs to read the bible for them (which is why the catholic church didn't want King James to write an English translation) and talk to god for them (otherwise he would just be the head preacher of a very large church) but what do I know.
And I have the 1st amendment right to call the disrespecting of a widely respected religious figure complete horseshit (I'll rarely use profanity, but that's what I think of it).
I really don't think that comment needed justifying.
Yes or no, do you think that society worries more about political correctness with other religions before Catholicism?
If you answered yes, than I proved my point and we needn't go on. If you answered no, I'd like to know who tiptoes around Catholics? They are the butt of jokes and they are criticized constantly.
He was a champion of human-kind known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals.
Don't we think well of ourselves??!!
Sounds like a Robin Hood of sorts.
Did Robin Hood ever drive a Lexus? :-)
Before I respond to your question about catholics I need for you to respond to my three-part post. And the follow up. You're not getting off the hook. Come on, debate, don't just rely on what happens to you in a day for the basis of your perspective!
This Robin Hood had Lexus x 2 until he got his hybrid Camry last year. He'll drop the other Lexus next winter when the lease is up and go for something just as good with less label - or even no car at all and just ride into the sunset with one vehicle.
There's more to Prometheus than just what is on the profile. Go study your mythology or you are proving me the more intelligent, well read of the two of us. Also, mere age doesn't bring wisdom; rather, it is what you do with and learn during those years that counts.
You're not getting off the hook that easily. Yes or no? We don't need to dig through and copy/paste evidence if the statement is understood. Is it? Do you disagree that Catholics are a punching bag? Do you disagree that it's okay for society to rip on Catholics, but they're afraid to rip on other religions?
Oh and...you can have as many luxury automobiles as you'd like, Mr. Fancy pants. It's a free, capitalist (at least for now) country. You earned it...enjoy it. Just don't tell my you're some selfless guy who wants to "stick it to the man". If you hadn't noticed...you are the man. And, you have capitalists and millionaires/billionaires to thank for your successes, by the way.
You are the most well-read on your own mythical character. I concede (though I think that's probably to be expected)...
I'll look up Prometheus on a light homework/work day this week. "F" says there's probably an interesting story behind it that you're referring to...
Homey don't play that crap. I can be as patient as a rock. You take the time to respond to my post and I'll take your bait. You may enjoy what I have to say but you'll never know.
By the way, I'll cut and paste from previous posts if I 1) don't think you read it or 2) don't feel you understaood based on your comments and finally 3) if you never responded previously and are saying the same old thing again.
In another sign of the strains between a Vatican resolutely opposed to modernity and a Western parish and priest eager to embrace its humane reforms, an archbishop evicts a priest and most of the congregation from a church in Brisbane. The sins? Allowing a woman to preach the homily and blessing committed gay couples. These are the 'evils' the church is focused on, the things it won't tolerate. A little polygamy and animism in Africa - and widespread marriage annulments in America are, in contrast, manageable. And for several decades, child abuse was fine if kept on the downlow.
One despairs but recognizes the truth in this, at least:
“The Church when it is facing annihilation can turn itself around.”
But not until then.
"it’s unnecessary and insensitive for you to degrade a man who has earned more than to be called an “idiot” by a flippant young woman who clearly can’t disagree with someone and respect their position of religious leadership at the same time."
Just because you respect the pope's position of leadership doesn't mean the rest of the world does. To many he is just a guy in a funny hat.
Focus on the Family Loses Focus
The Religious Right in the US is finally starting to come to their senses and realize that the Republican Party has been playing them for fools for the last 30 years. James Dobson, who recently resigned as the head of Focus on the Family, gave a farewell speech to his staff that acknowledged they have lost all of their battles. Abortion is still legal, the number of states permitting gay civil unions (or even marriage) is rising, and one of the issues that got religious conservatives to go political in the first place — prayer in schools — has gone nowhere.
According to an article in the Telegraph, the problem is that rather than pushing their agenda themselves, the Religious Right — led by organizations such as Focus on the Family — worked directly with the Republican party to court Christian voters to elect Republican candidates. Unfortunately, once elected those politicians betrayed them by failing to pursue the conservative agenda. All the church’s energy was used up by the political process, with nothing left to actually accomplish the agenda.
This viewpoint was summed up by Steve Deace, an evangelical radio talk show host in Iowa:
Conservatives became so obsessed with the political process we have forgotten the gospel.
Personally, I think it is actually worse than that. By trying to mix politics with religion, the Religious Right lost their way. Not only did they fail at politics, they failed at religion. In other words, it isn’t just that they failed to accomplish their agenda, they picked the wrong agenda.
Jesus preached tolerance (”let he who is without sin cast the first stone”) and love. What would he think of an anti-gay agenda? Jesus even drove out the money changers from the church. What would he think of churches doing fundraising for political candidates and issues?
The problem is that politics is played by pushing hot buttons to get your base riled up. But religion is based on attaining understanding (what some religions call enlightenment). What kind of religion do you have when you are obsessed solely with hot button items? A religion that not only loses elections, but also loses their own believers.
Maybe our forefathers were wise when they separated church and state, not just for the sake of the state, but even more so for the sake of the church.
________________________________
Looks like Bush caused a drop in believers?
_______________________________
The Religious Wrong
If religious conservatives thought that eight years of George Bush would help them gain strength, they are going to be disappointed. Not only did his administration not manage to pass any of the big social conservative issues — no abortion ban or amendment against gay marriage — they didn’t even do so well on more minor issues like trying to keep Terry Schiavo breathing.
But what has got to really hurt is that the number of people who are actively religious has declined. When Bush became president, 86% considered themselves to be Christians. Eight years later, the number has dropped to 76%. And the number of people who consider America to be a “Christian nation” fell from 69% to 62%. Worst of all, the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled from 8 to 15 percent.
These numbers are even more significant when you consider that the rising number of Hispanic immigrants has increased the number of Roman Catholics, which means that the percentage of Christians in the rest of the population has decreased even more.
_______________________________
Telegraph article:
Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle.
James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family - one of the largest Christian groups in the country - and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.
Related Articles
Bishop of Rochester resigns to become defender of persecuted Christians
China has a key role in bringing North Korea back down to earth
Put down those tools, time off work is sacred
Tony Blair 'doing God'
G20 summit: US media praises Barack Obama's performance - but Gordon Brown is just a bit player“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,” he said.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Despite changing the political agenda for a generation, and helping push the Republicans to the Right, evangelicals have won only minor victories in limiting the availability of abortion. Meanwhile the number of states permitting civil partnerships between homosexuals is rising, and the campaign to restore prayer to schools after 40 years - a decision that helped create the Moral Majority - has got nowhere.
Though the struggle will go on, the confession of Mr Dobson, who started his ministry from scratch in 1977, came amid growing concern that church attendance in the United States is heading the way of Britain, where no more than ten per cent worship every week.
Unease is rising that a nation founded - in the view of evangelicals - purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”.
Recent surveys have suggested that the American religious landscape has shifted significantly. A study by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 11 per cent fewer Americans identify themselves as Christian than 20 years ago. Those stating no religious affiliation or declaring themselves agnostic has risen from 8.2 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 2008.
Despite a common distaste among evangelicals for the new Democratic president, who is regarded as at best a die-hard, pro-abortion liberal and at worst a Marxist, a serious rift is emerging among social conservatives in the wake of his election victory.
A growing legion of disenchanted grassroots believers does not blame liberal opponents for the decline in faith or the failures of the religious Right. Rather, they hold responsible Republicans - particularly Mr Bush - and groups like Focus on the Family that have worked with the party, for courting Christian voters only to betray promises of pursuing the conservative agenda once in office.
“Conservatives became so obsessed with the political process we have forgotten the gospel,” said Steve Deace, an evangelical radio talk show host in Iowa who broadcast a recording of Mr Dobson’s address, which he said had appeared on Focus on the Family’s website before disappearing.
Mr Deace added: “All that time spent trying to sit at the top table is not time well spent. Republicans say one thing and do another.”
In the southern Bible belt, many like the Rev Joe Morecraft, head of a small Presbyterian church near Atlanta, judge that the Christian movement failed not because its views were unpalatable for moderates and liberals, but because “it was not Christian enough”.
A deserter from the Republican Party, he said Christians had been corrupted by politics and needed to return to the basics of local social work and preaching the gospel, rather than devoting their “energies to getting a few people elected”.
He is not alone in questioning how evangelical leaders such as Mr Dobson could spend a career campaigning against abortion and then eventually support a candidate like Senator John McCain, who has dubious “pro-life” credentials.
Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, a South Carolina-based group which organises home-schooling for Christian children, said: “Political involvement by Christians is not wrong, but that’s all the big groups did for 25 years. They were more concerned with fund-raising and political power than they were with our children’s welfare.”
“It’s a failed movement,” he said. “We will end up like England, where the church has utterly lost its way.”
Michael Spencer, a writer who lives in a Christian community in Kentucky, said the religious Right had suffered from its identification with Mr Bush, the most unpopular president in living memory, and the extremist rhetoric of some on the religious Right.
One of the more notorious outbursts was the Rev John Hagee’s assertion that the deadly Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was God’s judgment on New Orleans for hosting a gay parade.
In an online article in the Christian Science Monitor that has became a touchstone for disaffected conservatives, Mr Spencer forecast a major collapse in evangelical Christianity within ten years.
“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake,” he wrote.
"Just because you respect the pope's position of leadership doesn't mean the rest of the world does. To many he is just a guy in a funny hat."
I apologize. I was under the impression that I was speaking to mature, intellectual life-forms. Yes, I would expect a teenager to disrespect people of authority or people of a certain stature who command resepect.
As an adult, I would stop short of calling Obama or any religious leader an "idiot." I suppose I expect as much from my peers as I do of myself. Pardon my over estimation.
seriously, to me he is a guy in a funny hat.
I have no reason to respect the pop any more than the guy I see driving down the street. He is not a part of my world. I neither prescribe to his religious dogma nor do I see him as an important figure. He is not a person of authority or certain stature in my world. That has nothing to do with maturity on my part.
Notice I didn't call him an idiot because I have no reason to do so. I do, seriously, think he is a guy in a funny hat.
I do think, however, that it is idiocy to condemn condoms - something that prevents abortions and the spread of disease. But it is certainly expected since the catholic (and most christian)dogma so puritanical.
Looks like the catholics are showing disrespect to the most powerful man in the world. Hasn't he earned respect as well? Moreover, the church is now sticking its nose in politics. Isn't there supposed to be a seperation or something?
Notre Dame's Obama invite riles bishops
The Associated Press
The nation's flagship Catholic university's honoring of a politician whose abortion rights record clashes with a fundamental church teaching has triggered a reaction among the nation's Catholic bishops that is remarkable in scope and tone, church observers say.
At least 55 bishops have publicly denounced or questioned Notre Dame in recent weeks, employing an arsenal of terms ranging from "travesty" and "debacle" to "extreme embarrassment."
The bishops' response is part of a decades-long march to make abortion the paramount issue for their activism, a marker of the kind of bishops Rome has sent to the U.S. and the latest front in a struggle over Catholic identity that has exposed rifts between hierarchy and flock.
Almost immediately after Notre Dame invited Obama and he accepted, anti-abortion and conservative Catholic groups launched protests, and bishops began either making statements or releasing letters written to the university president, the Rev. John Jenkins.
The university has emphasized that Obama will be honored as an inspiring leader who broke a historic racial barrier — not for his positions on abortion or embryonic stem cell research.
U.S. bishops have long been at the forefront of opposing legal abortion, but it's never been their sole focus. During the 1980s, the bishops issued pastoral letters on nuclear weapons, poverty and the economy, influenced by the late Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's concept of a "consistent ethic of life."
Many Catholic bishops, however, worried that abortion was getting shortchanged. Those who argue abortion trumps everything say that other issues are irrelevant without the beginning of life and that things like capital punishment and war are sometimes justified.
Timothy Barnes, a Colgate University political scientist, said the Notre Dame clash gives bishops a chance to promote two of their top priorities: re-emphasizing abortion at a time when the issue is waning, and stressing the Catholic character of Catholic universities.
Polls show Catholics giving high job approval ratings to Obama, and Catholic attitudes about abortion and stem-cell research largely mirror the public's.
"I think the bishops who believe abortion is the ultimate litmus test look at the polls and realize Catholics are not listening to them," said the Rev. Mark Massa, co-director of the Curran Center for American Catholic Studies at Fordham University. "They're playing a very dangerous game because they do not have the moral authority they had before the sex abuse crisis, and they're trying to find a toehold and get heard."
So far, the Notre Dame saga doesn't seem to be resonating. Only about half of Catholics surveyed by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life from April 23 to 27 had heard about the controversy.
About half of U.S. Catholics supported Notre Dame, 28% said the school was wrong and 22% had no opinion, the poll found. People who attend Mass frequently were more likely to oppose the university's stance, and also gave Obama lower job performance marks.
"The litmus test is on 'How do we best change the policies and work for a culture of life?" Appleby said. "Many Catholics want to be open to at least discuss with the bishops the best way to move forward on our common goal. But the bishops have imposed this particular approach and have not felt it necessary to consult the faithful fully on that."
Wenski also has spoken out about banning torture and finding a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants — issues he said can be common causes for bishops and the White House.
From AMERICA - The Catholic Weekly
For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. They scorn Augustine’s inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics, who will not know which of them belongs to the City of God until God himself separates the tares from the wheat. Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.
The sectarians’ targets are frequently Catholic universities and Catholic intellectuals who defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition. Their most recent target has been the University of Notre Dame and its president, John Jenkins, C.S.C., who has invited President Barack Obama to offer the commencement address and receive an honorary degree at this year’s graduation. Pope Benedict XVI has modeled a different attitude toward higher education. In 2008, the pope himself was prevented from speaking at Rome’s La Sapienza University by the intense opposition of some doctrinaire scientists. The Vatican later released his speech, in which he argued that “freedom from ecclesiastical and political authorities” is essential to the university’s “special role” in society. He asked, “What does the pope have to do or say to a university?” And he answered, “He certainly should not try to impose in an authoritarian manner his faith on others.”
The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.
Pope Benedict XVI has also modeled a different stance toward independent-minded politicians. He has twice reached out to President Obama and offered to build on the common ground of shared values. Even after the partially bungled visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Pope Benedict, Vatican officials worked quickly to repair communication with her. Furthermore, in participating in the international honors accorded New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson in Rome last month for outlawing the death penalty (See Signs of the Times, 5/4), Pope Benedict did not flinch at appearing with a politician who does not agree fully with the church’s policy positions. When challenged about the governor’s imperfect pro-life credentials, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe responded on point, “We were able to help him understand our position on the death penalty.... One thing at a time.” Finally, last March the pro-choice French president Nicolas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the pope’s own cathedral.
Four steps are necessary for the U.S. church to escape the strengthening riptide of sectarian conflict and re-establish trust between universities and the hierarchy. First, the bishops’ discipline about speakers and awards at Catholic institutions should be narrowed to exclude from platforms and awards only those Catholics who explicitly oppose formal Catholic teaching. Second, in politics we must reaffirm the distinction between the authoritative teaching of moral principles and legitimate prudential differences in applying principles to public life. Third, all sides should return to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI that in politics there are usually several ways to attain the same goals. Finally, church leaders must promote the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options. For as the council declared, “The bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them” (“Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” No. 92).
In my view, the singular focus upon abortion as THE issue over which conservative Catholics will brook no divergence and around which we are called to rally reveals, to my mind, not evidence of robust Catholic culture as much as its absence. It seems to me that - along with the opposition to gay marriage - this issue represents the last stand, the inner-most wall barely keeping the hordes from overrunning the sanctum. The ferocity over this issue - and this issue almost to the exclusion of nearly every other issue that might be part of a rich fabric of Catholic culture - suggests to me that Catholic culture, where it existed, has been largely routed. And, in fact, it suggests further that it is precisely for this reason that this issue has become largely defined politically - and not culturally - with an emphasis on the way that the battle over abortion must be won or lost at the ballot box (and, by extension, Supreme Court appointments).
Americans didn't just reject the politics of the religious right. They rejected the hubris and simplistic nature of strict religion. The "Faith in Flux" report declares:
"About half … became unaffiliated, at least in part, because they think of religious people as hypocritical, judgmental or insincere. Large numbers also say they became unaffiliated because they think that religious organizations focus too much on rules and not enough on spirituality, or that religious leaders are too focused on money and power rather than truth and spirituality."
Post a Comment