The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCatholics For Choice Runs a Repulsive Ad
by Michael Sean Winters on Dec. 02, 2009
Catholics for Choice (CFC) took out a full page ad in this morning’s Washington Post with the ridiculous charge that “[t]he United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is directing healthcare policy in the United States.” Funny, I did not see any miters making their way down the aisles of the House chamber to cast their votes but maybe I wasn’t watching closely.
The ad goes on to warn of what they see as dire consequences of the bishops’ involvement, claiming “There will be: No access to abortion – even in cases of rape or incest; No in-vitro fertilization; No contraception…” Well you get the picture. They conclude: “Your healthcare will contain nothing that doesn’t meet the myriad litmus tests prescribed by a small group of men who don’t represent American Catholics, let alone the American people.”
Where to begin? The ad might meet minimal standards of decency and honesty if it had noted that the Catholic Church actually does provide a great deal of healthcare in this country, and a disproportionate amount for the poorest of the poor, so perhaps they deserve a seat at the table when discussing how to reform the healthcare system. They were not alone at the table, after all. Representatives from the insurance companies, from the pharmaceutical companies, from hospital associations, the AARP and AMA and, yes, from pro-choice groups, all got to exercise their constitutional right to petition Congress.
But, Frances Kissling and her crowd at CFC reserve all their ammunition for the hierarchy. It is an old story. It is, by now, a tired story, a shrill story, a predictable story. CFC is right that the bishops do not represent American Catholics before Congress but they never claimed to do so. They do represent the teaching authority of the Church to Catholics, however. This is what Kissling cannot abide. Her ecclesiology is difficult to gauge but it sure smells like liberal Protestantism, which is a fine ecclesiology to have, but it is not a Catholic ecclesiology. Her ethics are the kind of neo-Malthusian nonsense that one finds in liberal circles in the early 1920s, when Margaret Sanger was cavorting with the KKK and before Josef Mengele gave eugenics a bad name. Kissling’s politics, if adopted by the Democrats, will return the GOP to majority status because the result CFC wants in the current health care debate – overturning the logic of the Hyde Amendment – will only result in a group of pro-life Democrats losing their seats to pro-life Republicans.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
CFC’s ad is repulsive and their ideas should be repulsed by Congress.
There is no such thing as a
There is no such thing as a "Catholic" who is in favor of free choice.
The pro-choice position is
The pro-choice position is far from apostasy (at least as defined in the Catechism) and even an excommunicated Catholic, or one found guilty of heresy, is still a Catholic. Your position has no basis at all in the Code of Canon Law, nor in any real understanding of ecclesiology. Doctrinal error does not somehow nullify the indelible mark of baptism.
One cannot help but wonder,
One cannot help but wonder, Clint--- what is the official title of arbiter of who is and is not "Catholic," how much does it pay, and to whom do you report?
Is it your full-time job?
I dunno....seems like the
I dunno....seems like the Catechism of the Catholic Church is about as official an arbiter as it gets, though I'm not sure how much pay it receives....
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
-----------
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
---------
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
------
It doesn't exactly require being on the payroll of a chancery to be able to do a quick search of the Catechism....but heck, if you want to pay me for doing this search for you, let me know!
Any more questions about being Catholic?
yeah how do you Love Thy
yeah
how do you Love Thy Enemy?
Admonishing the sinner and
Admonishing the sinner and teaching the ignorant are works of mercy
Well, yeah, How about
Well, yeah, How about baptism? How about that indelible mark? That's the Catholic thing...one of the problems with equating political choices with personal choices is that it is a mixing of moral and political and criminal issues. In all this talk, no one can say who gets to pay what penalty for what? Saving a woman's life? as this can be...and that, my friend, is where this issue began. That's the political issue. Like many women, I don't see a lot of reason to place the very fact of my life in the hands of the Church hierarchy, with its history of only partial respect for women's lives and dignity. Until you put women into the picture, you don't get the moral issues at all. And neither does this Church hierarchy, with its blinders on when it comes to women.
The problem I have with your
The problem I have with your synthesis is that the church had a different notion of when in the pregnancy process abortion constituted abortion. Generally that was held to be quickening. It is only very recently that the notion of abortion was extended to the moment of conception, and that is where the disagreement lies.
I would be more inclined to believe the abortion crudade was about something other than controlling the reproductive system of women when excommunication latae sententiae is extended to the premeditated murder of born human beings and the discussion on when life begins took in the opinion of scientists as well as theolgians. If a full human person is present at conception in fact, as well as potential, then the natural process of pregnancy itself a major abortifacient.
The Tridentine Decree on
The Tridentine Decree on Justification orders that anyone who rejects the doctrine of Free will is liable for expulsion from membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Your public rejection here of this doctrine thus normative for our Faith reveals you as unCatholic according to the Decree of the Council of Trent.
Good luck with all of that and I shall pray for your conversion to the True Faith.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
I agree, 100%!
I agree, 100%!
Will NCR endure much longer
Will NCR endure much longer this anti-Catholic Republican speechwriter upon our pages, whose column is consistently "repulsive and (whose) ideas should be repulsed by" NCR?
Indeed. NCR, why not give
Indeed. NCR, why not give Michael Sean Winters to Fox News for Christmas?
Only if NCR expells
Only if NCR expells anti-Catholic Democratic speechwriters from these pages.
My poor confused brother,
My poor confused brother, what did he write that was anti-Catholic? Now, those "Catholics" for the Murder of Children--they are certainly anti-Catholic.
You are OK with Catholics for
You are OK with Catholics for Free Choice slandering (I know libel if it's printed) the Church and the bishops, lying, and fear mongering in order that they might convince more people to enable or encourage the killing of more children?
"They do represent the
"They do represent the teaching authority of the Church to Catholics, however." While they certainly do represent the teaching authority of the Church, well, they do a bit more than that, Michael. They also do meddle in politics. By that I don't mean that I don't think they have every right to try to influence the Congress or the process, but, in fact, many people do see "...miters making their way down the aisles of the House chamber to cast their votes." There is reason that people see what you don't. They have clearer eyes. The bishops use the Eucharist as a weapon, and, as in the case of Senator Patrick Kennedy, some of them want to direct each political strategy and vote with that weapon. That is far beyond the bounds of what is appropriate to their role, and I object to it, regardless of their representation of the teaching authority of the Church. It is a danger to our political process called democracy.
So glad the writer chose NOT
So glad the writer chose NOT to stoop to Ms. Kissling's "repulsive" level:
"This is what Kissling cannot abide. Her ecclesiology is difficult to gauge but it sure smells like liberal Protestantism, which is a fine ecclesiology to have, but it is not a Catholic ecclesiology. Her ethics are the kind of neo-Malthusian nonsense that one finds in liberal circles in the early 1920s, when Margaret Sanger was cavorting with the KKK and before Josef Mengele gave eugenics a bad name..."
Thank you for pointing out
Thank you for pointing out that repulsive, extremist approach to journalism.
If I recall the statistics
If I recall the statistics correctly, 17% of hospitals are "Catholic" in some fashion or other and they provide an even larger percentage of beds (being focused on care instead of research). If the bishops were the board of a corporation providing that much of US health care they would have written the bill and Congress would have shut up and passed it. CFC is simply a group that abandoned being anything resembling Catholic but refuses to be honest enough to give up the name. All of the services mentioned are elective, not essential healing services. They would still be readily available, just not taxpayer funded. CFC knows this. I understand neither the logic nor the pathology that causes them to insist on publishing such lies.
Don Q states "All of the
Don Q states "All of the services mentioned are elective, not essential healing services."
Tell it to those women whose pregnancies, including ectopic, put their lives in clear danger, or that nine year old child in Brazil who would have been ripped apart, but instead in effect opted for the excommunication which was imposed upon her, by undergoing the surgery which was imposed upon her, after some relative was imposed upon her.
Tell it to the women of Nicaragua:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/shocking-abortion-ban-...
Thank you, Frere Charles.
Thank you, Frere Charles. Many of our Catholic brothers and sisters couldn't care less about our very lives. I wonder if they learned that from the Catholic Church or just never unlearned it through it.
Veery good points. Thank you.
Veery good points. Thank you.
Mr Winters as a
Mr Winters as a "anti-Catholic Republican speechwriter"? What planet are you on, and how stupid do you think the readers here are to take such a comment seriously? I'm offended.
And I never, ever thought I'd agree with Winters...
While heartily sorry for
While heartily sorry for having offended you, I must ask, please, which part of "anti-Catholic Republican speechwriter" do you not understand?
Winters's position on war
Winters's position on war runs directly counter to the explicit preaching of our two latest Popes and directly in lockstep with Republican war profiteers. Unlike his, here is the Roman Catholic position on war, drawn from Bishop Gumbleton's current column
================================================
Shortly after 9/11 happened in the year 2001, within a few months, we went to war with Afghanistan. In that war of course, we were bombing and many people were being killed, civilians. And some of the families of the victims of 9/11, led by a person whom I came to know, her name is Colleen Kelly, formed a group that they called “Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.” These are all families who had lost a family member on 9/11. Colleen had lost her brother.
Yet they did not want to use violence and killing in response, so they organized a trip to Afghanistan. I was invited to be part of it and I went with them. What they did was to seek out families in Afghanistan who had a family member killed by U.S. bombs or artillery fire, and they visited them. They shared their grief together, they prayed with them and they brought about reconciliation and a real bond of love.
That’s what Jesus is calling us to do -- respond to violence with the fascinating power of love. That’s what will bring reconciliation. That’s what could bring peace into our world and it’s the only thing, and it is the way of Jesus. He rejected violence.
For the life of me I can't
For the life of me I can't figure out why Catholics for Free Choice (and some of the commenters on this thread that disagree with Sean Patrick Winters) insist on calling themselves Catholic and staying in the Church. It defies logic.
No one is forced to stay in the Catholic Church. Remaining in the Church is your own "free choice," but remaining in good standing with the Church also requires that you accept Church teaching.
I will anticipate the argument that the current hierarchy of the Church does not constitute the Church and that some of you think you can change fundamental Church teachings from within. Sorry, but you are wrong.
The Catholic Church has always stood on the side of the unborn human lives....and it will always be pro-life/anti-abortion...FOREVER until the end of time.
Also, the Catholic Church will always have a majority of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope that will adhere to Church teaching and will point out when some Catholics are violating Church teaching.
It has always been a hierarchical Church with authority from Christ and the Apostles....and it will always be that way, until Christ comes again.
So given this certainty that the Church's core, dogmatic teachings shall always remain unchanged....why do so many dissenting Catholics who disagree with many Church teachings remain in the Church? The Catholic Church will NEVER change to suit your beliefs...you cannot possibly win. The true Church founded by Christ and his Apostles (and their unbroken line of successors to this day) always win.
Please become Episcopalians or Unitarians or join the United Church of Christ or some other progressive Christian denomination where all the progressive views and lifestyles are acceptable and the teachings change from year to year, decade to decade to match secular society's views. You'll never find this in the Catholic Church...so please explain to me why you insist on staying in a such an oppressive and regressive Church? You have a right to go wherever you like...
Just writes: "Please become
Just writes: "Please become Episcopalians or Unitarians or join the United Church of Christ or some other progressive Christian denomination where all the progressive views and lifestyles are acceptable and the teachings change from year to year, decade to decade to match secular society's views. You'll never find this in the Catholic Church.."
Oh, I don't know. Seems the anglo American bishops have been very aggressively changing teaching to match exactly the secular GOP socio-political platform and to avoid the much needed cry for universal health care, jobs with a living wage, the right to unionize mentioned in our recent social encyclical, the anguished cry to stop the wars and work for peace, just for starters.
Yup. Seems our presently loudest bishops put Republican politics this decade above the eternal Church verities.
Viva Cesar Chavez and Cardinal Roger Mahoney and Bishop Joseph Donnelly.
Born and raised in the most progressive Christian denomination, I remain
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Once again feuding around the
Once again feuding around the edges of the core question to which the oft wished for answer is constitutionally unavailable, and the expensive answer is not explored. CFC, crudely or beautifully stated by themselves, is concerned about financial obstacles getting in the way of a woman's choosing to abort. I am concerned about financial obstacles getting in the way (in her mind, at least) of a woman's keeping her child to AND AFTER birth.
Um, Mr. Winters, you might
Um, Mr. Winters, you might want to do some factchecking. Frances Kissling left Catholics for Choice over 2 years ago. And, yes, I too long for the day when Mr. Winters will no longer grace the pages (virtual or otherwise) of the National Catholic Reporter.
Erm, factcheckers at NCR,
Erm, factcheckers at NCR, hang your heads in shame. Frances Kissling left Catholics for Choice more than two years ago. Not much else right in this screed either, but I have better things to do with my time.
I wonder if Mr. Winters has
I wonder if Mr. Winters has read the following two articles. They seem to suggest that the bishops are indeed seeking to direct health policy:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17919
http://wamu.org/news/09/12/03.php#30641
And FYI, Ms Kissling retired from Catholics for Choice more than two and a half years ago. Do I hear murmurs about not letting the facts get in the way of a good diatribe?
C'mon NCR, you can do better.
indeed, and thank you, Mr.
indeed, and thank you, Mr. Nolan, for indicating that point at which a columnist becomes just another blogger.
Post new comment