It is being reported that the Vatican is saying that it is better to use condoms than to infect someone with HIV and kill them. I'm glad they are finally saying it - many of us have been thinking it since the mid-1980s. Among many, Michael Sean Winters writes about this in the National Catholic Reporter.
The birth control conversation, however, is not just about preventing disease. This Pope is taking the conversation on contraception back to where it should be and away from the absolutism where it has previously lived. More importantly, Caritas in Veritate emphasized how birth control is a capitulation to economic reality that no Catholic family need take. Economic reality must bend to procreation, not the other way around. The Church must always stand with the poor and their freedom to grow their families without starving, whether in the developing world or the Catholic middle class.
This is where I part company with the advocates of natural family planning, who seem to have no such qualms about telling families not to have more kids, but just by doing it the culturally approved Catholic way. Natural family planning should never be encouraged for economic reasons (that is a cop out to economic power) - it should only be used for health reasons - and I suspect if you make this leap, one can more easily see that the same motiviations make artificial birth control a less frightening moral concept - particularly in cases where another pregnancy could be deadly for the mother.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Fr. Curran responds to the bishops on abortion
As I stated in a previous article, the Virginia Catholic Conference mentions abortion as an intrinsic evil issue to be addressed in considering who to vote for. Apparently, this is part of a nationwide discussion - one joined by Fr. Charles Curran, who challenges whether abortion is the primary intrinsic evil, given that there is some doubt about when ensoulment occurs. You can read how National Catholic Reporter covered his talk at http://ncronline.org/news/politics/curran-how-bishops-challenge-abortion-laws-flawed.
I disagree with Curran, who quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on ensoulment. So far, neuroscientists have not found the kind of "soul" that Aquinas would expect. Biologists have found, however, that after gastrulation, the developing embryo seems to be acting intentionally toward an end in a way that is not present before that point. Under an Aristotelean, this seems to be evidence of a vital force or soul. This would mean that abortion is wrong, but not artificial birth control or stem cell research.
Curran talks about giving the woman the benefit of the doubt on the abortion question. I don't see this as a question of doubt, but rather as a question of feasibility. It is simply not possible to regulation first trimester abortions where the fetus is recognized as a legal person without investigating every miscarriage - which society would reject. Giving fetuses status would also impact malpractice in this area in such a way as to force obstetricians to not treat first trimester pregnancies at all. Carving out exemptions would simply make any abortion law moot, so such a law would not be practical. Indeed, one could argue that a right to life is meaningless until independent life is possible - at least with assistance. Week 23 seems to be the best marker in this case - although this has nothing to do with ensoulment but instead with the ability to enjoy the right granted.
I disagree with Curran, who quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on ensoulment. So far, neuroscientists have not found the kind of "soul" that Aquinas would expect. Biologists have found, however, that after gastrulation, the developing embryo seems to be acting intentionally toward an end in a way that is not present before that point. Under an Aristotelean, this seems to be evidence of a vital force or soul. This would mean that abortion is wrong, but not artificial birth control or stem cell research.
Curran talks about giving the woman the benefit of the doubt on the abortion question. I don't see this as a question of doubt, but rather as a question of feasibility. It is simply not possible to regulation first trimester abortions where the fetus is recognized as a legal person without investigating every miscarriage - which society would reject. Giving fetuses status would also impact malpractice in this area in such a way as to force obstetricians to not treat first trimester pregnancies at all. Carving out exemptions would simply make any abortion law moot, so such a law would not be practical. Indeed, one could argue that a right to life is meaningless until independent life is possible - at least with assistance. Week 23 seems to be the best marker in this case - although this has nothing to do with ensoulment but instead with the ability to enjoy the right granted.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Catholics for Equality formed
Cross posted from Daily Kos, DC Examiner and Open Salon:
National Catholic Reporter reports that Father Joseph Palacios of Georgetown University, along with other Catholic leaders in the fight for marriage equality, have joined forces to add a Catholic face to the movement for marital rights for gays and lesbians. Fr. Palacios notes that 62 percent of Catholics favor such rights, even though the hierarchy does not. For more information, go to National Catholic Reporter's story at http://ncronline.org/news/politics/group-aims-mobilize-catholics-equality
Catholic bishops have been among the most vocal opponents of marriage equality - lending both their time and our treasure to ballot initiatives to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman - as it was defined in Genesis, a definition repeated by Jesus in his teaching about divorce. In other words, the Bishops are proof texting like they were Protestants. The spirit of both scriptures is the teaching that when two people marry, they are no longer members of their families of origin and are instead a new family. That is as applicable to gays and lesbians as it is to heterosexual unions. Indeed, the theology of marriage is that the Church and community are only a witness to the marriage. The parties themselves actually perform the Sacrament. Only an outdated understanding of human sexuality provides any reason to believe that this scripture should not apply to our wonderfully made gay and lesbian bretheren. Indeed, I would go further than legal equality - I would aver that the wedding ceremony is for families and that it is wrong to deny a Catholic wedding ceremony to the very heterosexual families of gay and lesbian couples.
The acting Executive Director of the group is Phil Attey. Among the other founding board members are Aniello Alioto, as well as a cascade of stars from the marriage equality movement, including:
Their main strategy is to enhance their visibilty through "equality brunches" so that rank and file Catholic leaders actually break bread with gays and lesbians on the theory that it is harder to discriminate against someone that you know. Of course, the many of us with a gay and lesbian family member don't need a brunch to meet someone who is harmed by the Church's attitude to marriage equality, we need only gather for the holidays.
I suspect there will be blowback on this - however the more the hierarchy resists - indeed, the more forcefully they do so, the closer we are to winning the hearts and minds of the remainder of the Church.
The group's web page is http://catholicsforequality.org/
National Catholic Reporter reports that Father Joseph Palacios of Georgetown University, along with other Catholic leaders in the fight for marriage equality, have joined forces to add a Catholic face to the movement for marital rights for gays and lesbians. Fr. Palacios notes that 62 percent of Catholics favor such rights, even though the hierarchy does not. For more information, go to National Catholic Reporter's story at http://ncronline.org/news/politics/group-aims-mobilize-catholics-equality
Catholic bishops have been among the most vocal opponents of marriage equality - lending both their time and our treasure to ballot initiatives to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman - as it was defined in Genesis, a definition repeated by Jesus in his teaching about divorce. In other words, the Bishops are proof texting like they were Protestants. The spirit of both scriptures is the teaching that when two people marry, they are no longer members of their families of origin and are instead a new family. That is as applicable to gays and lesbians as it is to heterosexual unions. Indeed, the theology of marriage is that the Church and community are only a witness to the marriage. The parties themselves actually perform the Sacrament. Only an outdated understanding of human sexuality provides any reason to believe that this scripture should not apply to our wonderfully made gay and lesbian bretheren. Indeed, I would go further than legal equality - I would aver that the wedding ceremony is for families and that it is wrong to deny a Catholic wedding ceremony to the very heterosexual families of gay and lesbian couples.
The acting Executive Director of the group is Phil Attey. Among the other founding board members are Aniello Alioto, as well as a cascade of stars from the marriage equality movement, including:
Anne Underwood, a leader in Maine’s Catholics for Marriage Equality; Patsy Trujillo, a former state representative from Santa Fe, N.M.; Eugene McMullan, lead organizer of Catholics for Marriage Equality in California; Charles Martel, a clinical social worker and co-coordinator of Roman Catholics for Marriage Equality in Massachusetts; and Tony Adams, a resigned Catholic priest who writes for Queer New York and South Florida Gay News.
Their main strategy is to enhance their visibilty through "equality brunches" so that rank and file Catholic leaders actually break bread with gays and lesbians on the theory that it is harder to discriminate against someone that you know. Of course, the many of us with a gay and lesbian family member don't need a brunch to meet someone who is harmed by the Church's attitude to marriage equality, we need only gather for the holidays.
I suspect there will be blowback on this - however the more the hierarchy resists - indeed, the more forcefully they do so, the closer we are to winning the hearts and minds of the remainder of the Church.
The group's web page is http://catholicsforequality.org/
Friday, September 24, 2010
Tea Party: True Believers or Fifth Column
Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter ran a series this week on his Distinctly Catholic Blog about the Tea Party. Here is my comment on his last installment:
The Tea Party is a multi-headed beast, however certain factions, like the Tea Party Express, are made up of the most conservative Republicans - socially, economically and culturally - and they are funded by David Koch through a variety of means. While some factions have no desire to be tagged as organs of the Republican Party, such as the Tea Party Patriots, the TPE desires to control it - either because they think that their ideas will win with voters or because they are trying to discredit the entire movement. The jury is out whether they are true believers or Libertarian Party fifth columnists. I suspect that they may be a little of both and that they have been successful because there is a perceived leadership vacuum in the Republican Party and they had the funding to step in.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Gay Marriage ruling
I have not blogged on this here as yet. The issue has come up in the Catholic media and I have been commenting, but have not posted those comments on this site. It seems the main objection I hear to Judge Walker's ruling from Catholics (from my Pastor to Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter) is his finding that moral disapproval cannot be a source of law. You can read MSW's post at http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/more-gay-marriage-ruling
I responded to Mr. Winters that he should be glad that the common law and the consitution allows the "privacy out" on such questions, as well as the freedom of relgions to do what they want. You would not like the alternative - for a state that is empowered to rule on the wrongness of homosexuality would also be able to rule on its rightness and impose that ruling on the Churches.
By the way, the Church's teaching on this issue is not consistent with any natural law reasoning that does not seek refuge in scripture and theism. That's not my view, its the view of the author of Fagothy's Right and Reason, which is the ethics book used in Catholic minor seminary.
The teaching that homosexuality is disordered is a band-aid. Prior to that teaching, which is recent, the church was on the road to teaching that homosexuals were wonderfully made and that sexuality is a gift from God. Put the two together, and you have to concede gay marriage and the licitness of homosexual sexuality. JPII, assisted by the current Pope, attempted retrenchment - but it won't last.
Traditionally, Catholic teaching on marriage has followed the lead of the state and in some nations, marriage and its sacramental blessing are still separate acts. This presents a problem for the Church, which can be solved in understanding Torah teaching on what happens in marriage, which Christ echoed when addressing the question of divorce. When someone gets married, the leave their families and cling to their spouse and the two shall become one. That is as much about legality as sexuality and it is true regardless of the genders of the parties involved. What was disturbing was the parents of gay children excluding their life partners in times of medical crisis and the state not recognizing their rights in relation to the rights of the family. This had to be corrected and marriage corrects it. Celebrating weddings in the Catholic Church is a way for families to recognize that the familial dynamic has altered. To not celebrate gay weddings is to deny Catholic families with gay members the chance to come to grips with the transition, which comes when one person promises fidelity to another - which is the essence of sacramental marriage and does not depend upon either priest nor witness (as I was taught in both marriage prep and Catholic H.S.).
On the question of moral disapproval, it could have easily been written as moral scorn - meaning that moral scorn is no more an actionable right under the freedom of religion (demanding conformity by society, such as outlawing the marriage rights of others or their right to serve in the armed forces) than yelling fire in a theater is a legitimate application of the freedom of speech. This protects the Church in areas in the south where the prominent domination still holds to and teaches the belief that the Pope is the anti-Christ. You cannot have it both ways.
I suspect gay marriages in the Catholic Church in the not too distant future, since often the Sacrament follows the lead of civil law. As far as the Commonwealth of Virginia's marriage amendment, it is all but toast. It was unconstitutional on its face because it violated the private contract rights of gays and lesbians for now valid reason, since the Commonwealth has no interest in interfering with who has medical power of attorney, control over visitation and who inherits the property of gay people. Its only role in settling estates is as a neutral arbiter, it cannot outlaw an individual's desires for the distribution of his or her property just because that person is gay. I suspect that worries about the Richmond Circuit are why this has not been challenged before, although it could be that no one has come forward to challenge such arrangements when they do occur and are executed. Either family members have not objected or Courts have ignored the constitutional provision. Now that there is federal precident going the other way, any attempt to enforce the Virginia Amendment would be problematic, although I expect it to eventually occur.
I responded to Mr. Winters that he should be glad that the common law and the consitution allows the "privacy out" on such questions, as well as the freedom of relgions to do what they want. You would not like the alternative - for a state that is empowered to rule on the wrongness of homosexuality would also be able to rule on its rightness and impose that ruling on the Churches.
By the way, the Church's teaching on this issue is not consistent with any natural law reasoning that does not seek refuge in scripture and theism. That's not my view, its the view of the author of Fagothy's Right and Reason, which is the ethics book used in Catholic minor seminary.
The teaching that homosexuality is disordered is a band-aid. Prior to that teaching, which is recent, the church was on the road to teaching that homosexuals were wonderfully made and that sexuality is a gift from God. Put the two together, and you have to concede gay marriage and the licitness of homosexual sexuality. JPII, assisted by the current Pope, attempted retrenchment - but it won't last.
Traditionally, Catholic teaching on marriage has followed the lead of the state and in some nations, marriage and its sacramental blessing are still separate acts. This presents a problem for the Church, which can be solved in understanding Torah teaching on what happens in marriage, which Christ echoed when addressing the question of divorce. When someone gets married, the leave their families and cling to their spouse and the two shall become one. That is as much about legality as sexuality and it is true regardless of the genders of the parties involved. What was disturbing was the parents of gay children excluding their life partners in times of medical crisis and the state not recognizing their rights in relation to the rights of the family. This had to be corrected and marriage corrects it. Celebrating weddings in the Catholic Church is a way for families to recognize that the familial dynamic has altered. To not celebrate gay weddings is to deny Catholic families with gay members the chance to come to grips with the transition, which comes when one person promises fidelity to another - which is the essence of sacramental marriage and does not depend upon either priest nor witness (as I was taught in both marriage prep and Catholic H.S.).
On the question of moral disapproval, it could have easily been written as moral scorn - meaning that moral scorn is no more an actionable right under the freedom of religion (demanding conformity by society, such as outlawing the marriage rights of others or their right to serve in the armed forces) than yelling fire in a theater is a legitimate application of the freedom of speech. This protects the Church in areas in the south where the prominent domination still holds to and teaches the belief that the Pope is the anti-Christ. You cannot have it both ways.
I suspect gay marriages in the Catholic Church in the not too distant future, since often the Sacrament follows the lead of civil law. As far as the Commonwealth of Virginia's marriage amendment, it is all but toast. It was unconstitutional on its face because it violated the private contract rights of gays and lesbians for now valid reason, since the Commonwealth has no interest in interfering with who has medical power of attorney, control over visitation and who inherits the property of gay people. Its only role in settling estates is as a neutral arbiter, it cannot outlaw an individual's desires for the distribution of his or her property just because that person is gay. I suspect that worries about the Richmond Circuit are why this has not been challenged before, although it could be that no one has come forward to challenge such arrangements when they do occur and are executed. Either family members have not objected or Courts have ignored the constitutional provision. Now that there is federal precident going the other way, any attempt to enforce the Virginia Amendment would be problematic, although I expect it to eventually occur.
The New Roman (Catholic) Missal
America Magazine, and I am sure the rest of the Catholic media as well, are reporting that the new English translation of the Roman Missal has been approved (with minor changes at the end). The new translation will be used exclusively starting at the begining of Advent 2011. You can read the story at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3200
This will lead many parishes who abandonned the use of Missalettes to bring them back, which is probably a good thing for those who wish to read the scriptures as they are proclaimed - however it will be costly. Those parishes who use hard copy missals will need to replace them, which will be very costly and may not happen in time, considering that service music is still being adapted.
Music ministers will probably take the lead in some of the cathechises, since many things which are sung will be changed, like the translation of the Sanctus. I suspect that in many parishes, the Pastor will be glad to let the Cantors take the lead in this instruction.
As I have written previously, this could go well or it could be the straw that breaks the camels back regarding the American and English speaking Church's relationship to Rome. Creation of a new Great Church, or rather a revitalization of the ancient Galatian Church (which was Gallic, i.e., made up of people with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes) is a real possibility - and plays right in with Benedict XVI's new dialogues with His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome (which is a claim of petrine descent). If the Galatian Church decided to create its own Patriarch, it could also establish its own Rite and Missal. Because of the ancient origins of the Galatian Church, such an action would even be scriptural. Indeed, other Churches could, and likely will, follow suit, if the American bolt from Rome.
Personally, I like the Roman Rite and find it discordant that the lapsing translation was so different from the Latin. This new translation is not too different than my feeling about the Extraordinary Rite, which is that it should be celebrated in both Latin and in the Venacular. I suspect that the new translation is the halfway point between the lapsing translation and a Venacular Extraordinary Rite - and if we continue in union with Rome, this is likely a good place to end up, although abandonning such union certainly opens the door to a reconsideration of certain other issues which may be beneficial in the long run - i.e., married priests, female priests, openly gay priests and openly gay married female priests (whose marriages could be celebrated with the pagentry of the Extraordinary Rite, just to add a note of irony that will drive some Traditionalists absolutely crazy).
This will lead many parishes who abandonned the use of Missalettes to bring them back, which is probably a good thing for those who wish to read the scriptures as they are proclaimed - however it will be costly. Those parishes who use hard copy missals will need to replace them, which will be very costly and may not happen in time, considering that service music is still being adapted.
Music ministers will probably take the lead in some of the cathechises, since many things which are sung will be changed, like the translation of the Sanctus. I suspect that in many parishes, the Pastor will be glad to let the Cantors take the lead in this instruction.
As I have written previously, this could go well or it could be the straw that breaks the camels back regarding the American and English speaking Church's relationship to Rome. Creation of a new Great Church, or rather a revitalization of the ancient Galatian Church (which was Gallic, i.e., made up of people with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes) is a real possibility - and plays right in with Benedict XVI's new dialogues with His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome (which is a claim of petrine descent). If the Galatian Church decided to create its own Patriarch, it could also establish its own Rite and Missal. Because of the ancient origins of the Galatian Church, such an action would even be scriptural. Indeed, other Churches could, and likely will, follow suit, if the American bolt from Rome.
Personally, I like the Roman Rite and find it discordant that the lapsing translation was so different from the Latin. This new translation is not too different than my feeling about the Extraordinary Rite, which is that it should be celebrated in both Latin and in the Venacular. I suspect that the new translation is the halfway point between the lapsing translation and a Venacular Extraordinary Rite - and if we continue in union with Rome, this is likely a good place to end up, although abandonning such union certainly opens the door to a reconsideration of certain other issues which may be beneficial in the long run - i.e., married priests, female priests, openly gay priests and openly gay married female priests (whose marriages could be celebrated with the pagentry of the Extraordinary Rite, just to add a note of irony that will drive some Traditionalists absolutely crazy).
Catholic Gay Marriage Poll
America Magazine is reporting on a poll regarding religious attitudes on Gay Marriage. You can read the artice at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3204
This is a telling finding. I suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to grow among the laity (and secretly among the clergy) and that one day soon enough families will demand that the Church witness these weddings that Rome will discover scriptural justification for doing so.
Both Torah and Jesus recognize that when a couple gets married, they leave their family and cling to each other, forming a new family. Families are the basic unit of society and marriage is an essential part of family life, both because it creates new families and allows the exit from one's family of birth. From a civil rights perspective, marriage cannot be denied to gay people because they cannot be kept in their families of origin against their will. Morally, the proof that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is accomplished by the couple and only witnessed by the priest, is alive and well in the gay community, is how committed gay couples take care of each other in hard times (and gay people have harder times than most). As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.
the Public Religion Research Institute sheds light on the impact of religion and the 2008 vote to abolish same-sex marriage rights in California. The poll finds that today, a slim majority of Roman Catholics, 51%, support same-sex marriage
This is a telling finding. I suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to grow among the laity (and secretly among the clergy) and that one day soon enough families will demand that the Church witness these weddings that Rome will discover scriptural justification for doing so.
Both Torah and Jesus recognize that when a couple gets married, they leave their family and cling to each other, forming a new family. Families are the basic unit of society and marriage is an essential part of family life, both because it creates new families and allows the exit from one's family of birth. From a civil rights perspective, marriage cannot be denied to gay people because they cannot be kept in their families of origin against their will. Morally, the proof that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is accomplished by the couple and only witnessed by the priest, is alive and well in the gay community, is how committed gay couples take care of each other in hard times (and gay people have harder times than most). As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)